Skip to main content

Full text of "The Ancestor : a quarterly review of county and family history, heraldry and antiquities .."

See other formats


3 1833 01230 6525 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2014 




A Quarterly Review of County and 
Family History, Heraldry 
and Antiquities 



Number VI 
JULY 1903 


The pages of The Ancestor will be open 
to correspondence dealing with matters 
within the scope of the review. 

Questions will be answered, and advice 
will be given, as far as may be possible, 
upon all points relating to the subjects 
with which The Ancestor is concerned. 

While the greatest care will be taken 
of any MSS. which may be submitted for 
publication, the Editor cannot make him- 
self responsible for their accidental loss. 

All literary communications should be 
addressed to 

The Editor of The Ancestor 
2 Whitehall Gardens 

Westminster S.W 





SOME CHESHIRE DEEDS. H. Farnham Burke, C.V.O., F.S.A. 

Somerset Herald ; Annotations by W. H. B. Bird 19 

BURY CATHEDRAL The Rev. E. E. Dorling 46 



CORD OFFICE. . . The Rev. Charles Swynnerton, F.S.A. 66 

CASTLE-GUARD J. Horace Round 72 


Mrs. G. E. Nathan 79 

SIR ANTHONY JACKSON, KNIGHT. William Jackson Pigott 89 


By permission of the Controller of H.M. Stationery Office 92 


CENTURY. . . The Rev. J. Charles Cox, LL.D., F.S.A. 103 


Julia G. Longe 119 


IV. The Greystokes. . . The Rev. James Wilson, M.A. 121 


H. G. A. Obreen 135 




Oswald Barron, F.S.A. 155 

THE VALUE OF ANCIENT DEEDS. . .J. Horace Round 175 


J. Horace Round, Sir H. Maxwell-Lyte, K.C.B., W. H. St. 

John Hope and the Editor 185 


Oswald Barron, F.S.A. 197 




The Copyright of all the Articles and Illustrations 
in this Review is strictly reserved 

[For want of space the instalments of the Genealogist's Calendar of Chancery Suits and the 
Fifteenth Century Book of Arms and several articles and reviews are held over.] 



Queen Mary Frontispiece 

The Manor House at Shere op. I 

John Lord Bray "1 
John Lord Bray J 

Margaret Roper ,, 4 

Mary Anne Catharine Matthews \ 
Reginald Bray of Shere ... J 

William Bray „ 8 

Reginald More Bray of Shere „ 10 

The Arms of * Le Seneschal Buxton ' „ 12 

Two Views of the Montagu Tomb in Salisbury Cathedral „ 46 

Arms from the Montagu Tomb „ 48 

Alexander Wedderburn of Kingennie ,, 50 

Robert Wedderburn of Pearsie „ 52 

Notarial Symbol of Alexander Wedderburn 55 

Notarial Symbol of Robert Wedderburn 56 

Carved Stone with Arms of Alexander Wedderburn and Helen 

Ramsay his Wife 57 

Tombstone of James Anderson and his Wife Grisell 

Wedderburn op. 58 

Pewter Box with Arms of Wedderburn and Duncan .... 61 

Ferdinand the Catholic, King of Spain op. 80 

Francis I. of France n 82 

Frederick I., King of Denmark „ 84 

Charlemagne f> 86 

Sr. de Nassau ff 88 

Seals of the Barons' Letter. Ia, Ib „ 186 

„ „ „ „ Ha, IIb „ 188 

IIIa, IIIb, IVa, IVb . . . „ 190 

V, VIa, VIb, VII, VIII, IX „ 192 

» » >» » Xa, Xb „ 194 


XIVb „ 196 


THE home counties, the counties which lie round about 
London, are not rich in families of ancient settlement. 
One reason for this is not far to seek. The great city lying 
within a day or two days' journey of the squire's ambling nag 
was a golden net spread for that prodigal who perches sooner 
or later in every man's family tree. In far Cumberland or 
Somerset the prodigal might drink and drink again, race his 
horses, and be a scandal to the villages round for his loose 
living, but after him the estate came to the heir little the worse 
for the violent follies which at the worst had vatted an out- 
lying farm into strong ale, or changed a mill into portions for 
half a dozen misbegotten kinsmen. But in the London court 
and the London taverns the knight and the squire from Surrey, 
Berkshire or Essex, moved amongst imminent dangers. The 
reckoning for a Cheapside tavern supper might be set against 
forty bouts in the alehouse up the lane, and where sixpence 
at home fell to a stroke at shovel-board a manor might go 
with a cast of cogged London dice. Here were tailors 
tempting the countryman with peacock splendours, jewellers 
beside whose wares the squire's silver chain seemed a mean 
thing to clasp about a gentleman's neck, and ladies whose 
favour's price was more than the bunch of ribbons which was 
enough to turn a country girl's head. Therefore, in our own 
day, Cornwall and Cheshire, Yorkshire and Shropshire have 
many old families still at home on their acres ; but few Essex 
families can show a pedigree to the Restoration, Berkshire has 
but one squire's family of any antiquity, and in Surrey the 
Brays and the Evelyns are almost alone amongst the old 
houses of untitled gentry, which have maintained a long con- 
nection with the county. 

The old English houses rose for the most part in crops 
forced up by times of change. The conquest of England was 
such a time, although the conquest year was not as fruitful in 
ancestors as the peerages of a past generation would have us 
believe. The black death which left so many gaps in hall and 
stall made room for the founding of many new houses, and the 



rise of the woolmen in the fifteenth century created a new 
group of rich gentry. The Wars of the Roses and the coming 
of the Welshman to the throne made a more famous mark in 
our family history, and with the Tudors rose the founder of 
the house of Bray of Shere. 

When the fortunes of Sir Reynold Bray had grown to a 
spreading tree which sheltered a court of clerks and laymen, 
clients of his favour, all students of Tudor genealogy will 
believe that it was not long before Sir Reynold's pedigree grew 
up beside them. His pedigree is carried to a companion of 
the Conqueror, William Sieur de Bray, an ancestor for whom a 
reference to Wardour Street's eldest child, the Battle Abbey 
roll, must stand for all proof of existence. True it is that the 
Sieur de Bray is sometime styled Jocelyn or Jenkin Bray and 
sometimes Robert, but these diversities are common amongst 
the Conqueror's companions. An early Northamptonshire family 
of the name of Bray is pressed to follow this conquering fore- 
father as his descendants, and Sir Reynold's own pedigree is 
drawn from a branch said to have settled in Bedfordshire, a 
county where Brays were certainly to be found in the thirteenth 
century. But the early history of this family is most obscure, 
depending for the most part upon sixteenth century pedigrees, 
which are little more than a string of names with few evidences 
to join generation to generation. If it be true that some lands 
in Harleston in Northamptonshire descended from a remote 
ancestor to Sir Reynold Bray, the pedigree is worthy of investi- 
gation. But as Sir Reynold was a younger son of a cadet 
branch, according to the pedigrees, it is difficult to find a reason 
for this inheritance. With Richard Bray, Sir Reynold's father, 
at least we are on sure ground. He was a Worcester man, 
the great Reynold, his second son, being born in the parish of 
St. John Bedwardine near Worcester. Leland reports that 
he was a physician, king's physician according to some legends, 
privy councillor according to others. We have him to all 
certainty in an entry in a Patent Roll of 1463, 1 at which date 
Richard Bray of Worcester, gentleman alias surgeon, has a 
pardon of outlawry which he had incurred in the late reign 
by not appearing to answer a plea of the executors of William 
Wetenhale, a citizen and grocer of London. Richard Bray is 
without doubt a man of means and substance, although a 

1 Pat. Roll, 3 Edw. IV. pt. i. m. 21. 

John Lord Bray. 

John Lord Bray. 


surgeon's trade in his times did not as a rule point to those 
good gifts. He may indeed have prospered in the early pros- 
perity of his son ; in any case we find that he was buried in a 
tomb in the north aisle of Worcester Cathedral, the which is 
no poor man's burying ground. Thomas' survey of the 
cathedral in the early nineteenth century speaks of the grave- 
stone as though it were then still in its place, but quotes no 
inscription thereon. One wife and five children were com- 
memorated with him on this monument. The five children 
agree with the story of the pedigree which, however, gives him 
two wives. By Margaret, the first wife, daughter of a Sandys 
of Furness Fell in Lancashire, he had, according to most of 
the pedigrees, an only son John, whose daughter and heir 
became wife to the Lord Sandys of the Vine. The second 
wife is styled Joan Troughton, and by her Richard Bray had 
issue Reynold, 1 and another son christened after an old time 
custom also by the name of John and called John the younger. 
Two daughters, Lucy and Joan, make up the tale of the five 
children on the monument, which was probably a brass, and 
as we have said lost its inscription at some early date. The 
lack of this inscription encouraged many of the earlier pedigree 
makers to make Sir Richard Bray, knight, of Richard Bray the 

The great maker of the Bray fortunes rose by service. With 
high scorn writes a seventeenth century satirist 2 : c To serve 
noblemen in most unnoble offices, to pull off their boots, brush 
their cloathes, wait at table with a trencher in their hand, ride 
with a cloak-bag behinde them, dine and sup with footmen 
and groomes, is the ordinary course of gentlemen in England, 
wilst in other countreys they goe to the warres and scorne to 
sitt in a shop or wate upon any one.' But by service rose 
many a man in those days of change, and Reynold Bray rose 
by holding to the skirts of a great lady, Margaret of Rich- 
mond, wife, by her second marriage, of Sir Henry Stafford. 
Sir Henry Stafford made Reynold Bray his receiver general 

1 That the mother of Sir Reynold Bray was named Joan cannot be ques- 
tioned, for by his will he gives two hundred pounds to the friars of Guildford, 
where she was buried, for masses and prayers for the souls of her and of Richard 
her husband. Her burial elsewhere than at Worcester may account for the 
fact that only one wife is represented upon the monument. 

2 England dispraised (by Henry Belasyse, 1657) : Report of the Historical 
Manuscripts Commission ; Various Collections, 1903, ii. 204. 



and household master, and at Stafford's death (in 148 1-2) his 
servant remained with the widowed Lady Margaret. When 
in 1472 she had a licence 1 to enfeoff certain trustees of her 
manors in Somerset and Devon to the use of her will, the 
last of eleven feoffees, whose names begin with Thomas, Arch- 
bishop of Canterbury, is Reynold Bray, gentleman. In such 
service at such a time a man must sink or swim. Margaret 
was daughter of a Beaufort. Her first husband, Edmun4 
Tudor, made her mother of the first Tudor king, her second 
was a Stafford of the Buckingham house, and her third was 
the Lord Stanley, Earl of Derby, whose politic changing of 
sides at Bosworth allowed him and his brother William to pick 
the crown of England out of the hawthorn bush and set it on 
Henry's head. 

Reynold Bray kept his wise head upon his shoulders 
and swam safely in these troubled waters. At the accession 
of Richard III. he had a general pardon, 2 which allowed 
him to live in peace through another troublesome reign 
and to meddle with a great matter — nothing less than the 
marriage of the white rose of York with the Earl of Rich- 
mond, the only child of his mistress. Morton, the Bishop of 
Ely, who planned the marriage with his gaoler the Duke of 
Buckingham, at Brecknock in Wales, pressed for Bray's em- 
ployment in the plot. Bray was the bishop's old friend ; he 
was sober, discreet and well witted, a man whose prudent 
policy had compassed matters of great importance, and he was 
in the service of the Lady Margaret, mother of the chosen 
bridegroom. The prudent and politic Bray became a strong 
plotter for Richmond's cause, and through him many great 
gentlemen were brought to the side of Henry Tudor on Bos- 
worth Field. 

When Bosworth was fought out Reynold Bray rose with 
the new dynasty, and his boasted discretion kept him secure 
in his seat and in the enjoyment of the Tudor favour, so 
lightly to be forfeited. His honours came fast upon him. 
Knight of the Bath at the king's crowning, and soon after- 
wards Knight of the Garter, privy councillor, constable of 
Oakham Castle, high treasurer and chancellor of the Duchy 
of Lancaster, he gathered places, dignities, manors and pen- 
sions. His indenture of war in 1492 engaged himself to 

1 Pat. Roll, 12 Edw. IV. pt. i. m. 10. 

2 Ibid. 1 Ric. III. pt. iii. m. 18. 

Margaret Roper 

Daughter of Sir Thomas More. 


serve beyond sea with eleven men at arms beside himself, 
each of the twelve having his coistrel and his page, with 
twenty-four demi-lances, with seventy-seven mounted archers, 
and with 231 archers and two dozen of billmen on foot. Such 
a gallant train must needs follow the surgeon's discreet son 
when he rode to the wars. 

Five years later he saw war near at home, being at Black- 
heath when Lord Audley's Cornish rebels came up within 
sight of London. Thereby came more honours and lands. 
Holinshed says that he was made a knight banneret after 
the battle, but this he was already. 

The simple gentleman who had been a trustee of the 
Lady Margaret in 1472 was now trustee for the dower of 
Catherine of Aragon, as he had already been made trustee for 
the fulfilling of the king's own will. 

Having thus lived in high fortune and honour Sir Reynold 
Bray made ready for death, the death which the great lords 
of his day seem to have regarded as the occasion for the 
last pageant of their many pageants. He was a benefactor 
to many churches, but more especially was he patron of the 
work of St. George's in Windsor, where he made ready a 
chapel in which he might lie not far from the stall wherein 
he had sat as a knight of the garter. Here he was buried, 
where no monument of him stands, but his arms of Bray, 
and his wife's arms of Hussey, and his famous badge of 
the hemp-bray remain for a memorial in the stonework 
about the place where the tomb was. 

Malvern Church keeps his picture in glass, kneeling at a 
prayer-desk in armour covered with a tabard of his arms, 
and St. Mary's Church in Oxford had once a window with 
the like figure of Sir Reynold kneeling beside his lady. He 
died in 1503, six years before his master the king, whom, 
as the awe-stricken chroniclers have it, he was wont to chide 
for any kingly offence against good law or equity, giving him 
c good advertissement how to reform that offence and to be 
more circumspect in another like case.' The wisdom of Sir 
Reynold is apparent even in his choice of the time for death, 
for a king was coming to whom ministers who would die 
comfortably in their velvet-curtained beds would refrain from 
offering such 'good advertissement.' 

By his wife Catherine Hussey, who survived him, he left no 
children, and the representation of the male line of Bray passed 



to his nephew Edmund Bray, the son of his brother John the 
younger. Much of the estates of Sir Reynold came to the 
hands of the Lord Sandys his nephew by marriage, but 
Edmund Bray's share must have been a lordly portion, for in 
1529 he was summoned to parliament as a baron. 

Like his uncle, Edmund Bray was knight of the garter, 
and he was one of those nobles who with their pawned manors 
glistening on their backs followed King Henry to the field of 
the golden folly. He married a Devonshire woman, Jane, 
daughter of Richard Harwell or Halliwell, a squire whom 
the pedigrees of Bray style a knight, one of a batch of such 
knights made by the ingenious pedigree-makers within the 
space of three generations of the Bray history. He died in 
1539 and was buried at Chelsea near his father John Bray. 

John his only son, second and last of the Lords Bray of 
Eaton, succeeded him. He followed the wars, having a com- 
mand under the Earl of Hertford in France, and fighting in 
Norfolk against Ket's Norfolk rebels. His portrait shows him 
as a handsome and well-knit man, and after the Norfolk cam- 
paign he was given the leading of the king's own guard of 
gentlemen pensioners. 

Few houses of statesmen held safely with the house of 
Tudor to a third generation. In 1556 John Lord Bray saw the 
inside of the Fleet prison for a while and exchanged that 
retreat for the Tower. His wife, a daughter of the Earl of 
Shrewsbury, strove hard in his cause, and a pardon came the 
next year, from which pardon we learn the nature of his 
offence. In the parish of St. Andrew in London, the Lord 
Bray had most falsely, mendaciously and contemptuously said 
of his queen that if c his neighbour of Hatfield,' meaning 
the Lady Elizabeth, might once reign, he should have his lands 
and debts given him again, c which he both wished and trusted 
to see.' Under Henry VIII. fewer words than these would 
have cost the baron his head, but under Queen Mary they 
might be wiped out, and the pardoned Lord Bray was hurried 
over sea to redeem his character at the siege of Guines. But 
all the campaign could give him was a low fever, with which he 
came back to die at his house in the Blackfriars a year too soon 
to see fulfilled his good wishes for his neighbour of Hatfield. 
He was buried by his father and grandfather in the old church 
of Chelsea, Chelsea having been one of the many manors of 
the great Sir Reynold. Brasses and inscriptions having been 

Mary Anne Caiherine Matthews. 

Wife of Edward Bray, and sister of the author of the "Essay on Population. 

Reginald Bray of Shere, i 797-1 879. 

From a portrait by John Linnet!. 


wantonly torn away from the tomb, the present head of the 
house of Bray of Shere has renewed the memorial of the two 

Of the funeral of John Lord Bray at Chelsea the heralds 
who marshalled it have preserved one of the most characteristic 
accounts of these black velvet splendours. 

We begin with the Lord Bray's death in the Blackfriars on 
a Thursday, the eighteenth of November, at three o'clock in 
the afternoon. 

When the body was cold it is bowelled, cered and coffined, 
and brought into the great chamber where it lies under a table 
covered with a large pall of black unwatered camlet with a 
white cross along it. This pall has six scutcheons of his arms 
and his wife's arms wrought on buckram. A cross and tapers 
stand upon the pall, and the tapers burn there in the sight of 
those who watch before them until the Tuesday morning fol- 
lowing. Early in the morning of that day John Lord Bray 
sets out for his manor of Chelsea, and a great company with him. 

First comes the cross with thirty-four priests and clerks 
following it. Then comes one hooded, who bears the dead 
lord's standard, his long tailed flag embroidered or painted 
c with his crest of the lyon between two wyngs powdered with 
the dunne croppe eared connye and the brake and his woorde 
sera comme a Dieu plaira', the price of that standard being 
thirty-three shillings and fourpence, as appears by the bill 
annexed. Chaplains in their gowns and tippets go before 
Thomas Udall with the Bray banner and Rouge Dragon the 
pursuivant with the crested helm in his hands, Richmond 
herald with the coat of arms, and Garter King of Arms shep- 
herding his tabarded flock. My lord in his coffin comes 
next borne by six of his men and beside him walk two more 
hooded gentlemen who carry the banners of the Trinity and 
St. George (at 20s. apiece). Eighteen poor men carry eighteen 
torches before the chief mourner Sir George Broke, Knight 
of the Garter, Lord Cobham, and many more mourners and 

In this order they go to the Blackfriars bridge and there 
take water upon two great barges covered with black, and gar- 
nished with scutcheons, in which they row solemnly to Chelsea, 
the barge with the lord's body going first. 

At Chelsea church the body is borne into the choir and set 
upon trestles within a chancel hung with blacks, amongst stools 



and cushions for mourners also covered with black. High 
candles burn at the barriers about the coffin, each with scutch- 
eons of the Bray arms. 

Richmond herald bids the prayer for the soul of the right 
honourable Sir John Bray, knight, late Lord Bray, asking a pater- 
noster for charity. Then is dirige sung, and mass of requiem, 
and divers masses at the side altar. At magnificat and benedictus^ 
after the gospel and at libera me the corpse is censed. At the 
offering Master Garter and his fellows with the seven 
mourners go up to the altar and a golden piece is offered for 
mass penny. The coat of v arms, the target, the sword and the 
helm and crest are each severally offered and set upon the altar 
by the heralds who take them from the priests' hands. The 
mourners make their own offering, and Father Peryn, a black 
friar, begins his sermon on Scio quia resurget in resurrectione in 
novissimo die. Lazarus and his raising from the dead is ex- 
pounded, and Father Peryn or the good herald who reports 
him says that Lazarus was a gentleman given to chivalry for 
the wealth of his country. Application — even so was that 
noble man who lies here dead. At St. John's gospel standard 
and banner are offered, and the body is lowered to the grave. 
The mourners and heralds get them back to their boats and 
go back to their dinner in the dead lord's house at Blackfriars 
on the hall table where the black pall was. 

John, Lord Bray, left no issue ; his coheirs were found 
amongst his many sisters and their children. Of ten daughters 
of his father and mother six had married, one of them four 
times. The strange interpretation of the doctrine of abeyance 
which prevailed with the early Victorian peerage lawyer chose 
out from amongst the many descendants of these sisters of the 
last Lord Bray, Mrs. Sarah Otway-Cave, in whose person the 
barony was revived in 1839. Her last surviving child, Henri- 
etta, wife of the Rev. Edgell Wyatt-Edgell, carried the barony 
to her husband's family, and her son, who has exchanged his 
father's surname for that of Verney-Cave, is now Lord Braye of 
Eaton Braye, adding a final c e ' to a surname which the male 
descendants of Richard Bray are curiously insistent upon 
spelling with four letters. 

The male line of Bray was carried on by the descendants of 
the brothers of the first Lord Bray, Sir Edward Bray and 
Reynold Bray. Reynold the younger of these married a Mon- 
ington of Barrington and his line held Barrington until 1734. 

William Bray, the historian of Surrey, in his 97TH year 

From a portrait by John Linnell, 


Sir Edward the elder was of the Vachery in Surrey. He 
married three times and his son and heir another Sir Edward 
four times, one of the four wives being daughter of William 
Roper by Margaret More, the daughter of the great Thomas. 
His son Reynold was born of this Bray and Roper marriage. 
For this descent, on which doubt has been carelessly thrown, 
we have the assurance of his christening entry in the parish 
register of Shere, and his recognition in his fathers will. 
The second of these Sir Edwards, who dwelt at Wrotham in 
Kent, had been styled of Shere, a style which has followed 
the family ever since. The manors of Gumshall Tower 
Hill, Gumshall Netley, and Shere Vachery and Cranley, 
have stayed in the name of Bray since the days of Sir 

The next famous Bray was a great repairer of the for- 
tunes of the house. William Bray, who bought back the 
Brays* manor of Shere Eborum which had been sold in 1609, 
was born in 1 736. The fourth and youngest son of an Edward 
Bray of Shere, he was bred an attorney, but a place being 
found for him in the Board of Green Cloth, he left the Guild- 
ford attorney's office and held his post at the board for fifty 
years. He became heir to his elder brothers, married and had 
children, of whom one son only grew up, the grandfather of 
the present Bray of Shere. The labours of the Board of 
Green Cloth were not of such a nature as to claim the undi- 
vided attention of those who sat at it, and William Bray 
became an antiquary and a famous one. A fellow of the 
Society of Antiquaries in 1771, he was its treasurer in 
1803 and died at Shere at the patriarch's age of ninety-six. 
Through him will the name of Bray be evermore linked with 
that of his county of Surrey. When the Reverend Owen Man- 
ning died in 1801 leaving collections for the history of Surrey, 
William Bray took charge of the manuscript, and after visiting 
every parish of the county in the course of his task issued the 
first volume in 1804 of a history which ranks amongst the 
greater county history books of the days before Eyton and 
his school. Two more volumes appeared in 1809 and 18 14. 
Besides this great work, William Bray brought before the 
public the neglected work of a famous neighbour of the Brays, 
John Evelyn of Wotton, of whose writings he put forth an 
edition in 1818, since which date the famous diary has reached 
all the bookshelves of the world. 



[Among the family pictures which, by the courtesy of 
the present master of Shere, we are able to illustrate this 
article, will be found prints of the two portraits of the last 
Lord Bray. These portraits, despite the inscription in the 
corner of one of them, have been ascribed to his father, 
Edmund Lord Bray, but the evidence, on the whole, points 
to John Lord Bray as their subject.] 

Reginald More Bray of Shere. 


IN the last Report of Historical MSS. Commission just issued, 
which treats (i.a.) of the MSS. of Miss Buxton, Canon 
Jessopp remarks (p. xix.) that 

The earliest progenitor of the ancient family of Buxton of Shadwell Court 
... of whom we have any certain knowledge was Peter de Bukton knight, 
steward of the household of Henry, Earl of Derby, afterwards King Henry IV. 
whom he accompanied on his travels in the years 1 390-1 and 1392—3 with 
his son Robert de Bukton serving him as his squire. Ten years later he ap- 
pears in the Gascon Rolls as Mayor of Bourdeaux, a lucrative office, one of 
great importance, and which probably was the foundation of that wealth 
which his immediate descendants appear to have acquired when they settled 
at Tibenham in Norfolk, etc. 

With all respect to Dr. Jessopp's opinion I venture to say- 
that nothing is less certain than the origin he ascribes to the 
Tibenham Buxton, and that the alleged descent from Sir Peter 
de Bukton is absolutely without foundation for the reasons I 
will now give. 

All we know with certainty of the ancestors of the 
founder of this family, one Robert Buxton of Tibenham in 
Norfolk who was c the closely trusted friend and counsellor 
of the fourth Duke of Norfolk and his son the Earl of 
Arundel, 7 who leased the site of Rushford College to him in 
1580, may be told shortly thus : — 

John Buxton = 

I 1 . . 2 

Robert Buxton = Christian = Agnes 

d. 1528 j [Glemham?] 


John Buxton of Tibenham = Margaret Warner of Winfarthing, 
d. 5 April, 1572, set. 84 I widow of Matthew Halliot 

Robert, grantee 
of Rushford in 
1580, d. 1609 


= Joan dau. and co-h. 
of Robert Heron, or 
Heme of Tibenham 
a barrister (?) 

I I 

Margt. = Francis Buxton 
her of Dickleburgh 




John son and heir. In 1589 
used the two bars with a 
canton granted in 1574 to 
his father 



Burke refers to one John Buxton as having given the 
fourth bell toTibenham Church in 1478, and a cope of purple 
velvet in 1497, and says that he was the son of another John 

Prince F. Duleep Singh's copy of the 1589 Visitation 
refers to the family as coming from Dickleburgh where the 
Duke of Norfolk had possessions. 

At the Visitation of 1589 the arms passed to Robert 
Buxton were 

Quarterly 1 & 4 sa. two bars arg. on a canton of the 
second a buck trippant of the first attired or, 2 & 3 az. three 
herons or, the crest a pelican vulning itself. 

Now quartering of the Heron coat was absolutely unjusti- 
fiable, for the Hemes (afterwards translated into descendants 
of the ancient Northumberland family of Heron of Chipchase, 
but really small local people, tanners in fact) were not armi- 
gerous at all. 

So here in 1 589 we get the first symptom of bogus grafting 
on to the pedigree. 

Soon after, at a date which I shall show hereafter must 
have been between 1589 and 16 13, the achievement which 
was the cause of this paper, and of which a facsimile faces it, 
came into the possession of the family and caused them to 
exchange the coat, which was granted or possibly confirmed to 
them in 1574, for the lion shown on such achievement. 

This very interesting picture, still in the possession of the 
family, was, it is said, and I have no reason to doubt it, found 
at Bungay Nunnery by the Duke of Norfolk (the patron and 
employer of the Buxtons) when it was granted to him in 
29 Henry VIII. (1537-8). 

Whether he gave it at once to the Buxtons does not 
appear, but I should think not, otherwise why should they 
thirty-seven years later take a grant of a totally different coat ; 
and it was not till the Visitation of 1 6 1 3 that the family, with 
the assistance of the heralds of the period, threw over the 
granted coat and went, not only for the lion of the achieve- 
ment, but its impaled coat of two bucks, which by some 
strange confusion of mind they have treated as another Buxton 
coat ! 

One thing is abundantly clear, viz. that the monument, 
purporting to be erected on the death of John Buxton in 1572 
and bearing a lion rampant quartering two bucks couchant 

The Arms of " Le Seneschal Buxton." 


impaling or a bend engrailed between six roses gules, could 
not have been erected till long after its nominal date, for 
the two bars and a canton were granted two years later 
than 1572, and were used in 1589 — seventeen years 
later. 1 

This monument therefore is valueless as evidence, and I 
may also point out that the coat which purports to be impaled 
on it for Warner of Norfolk, is utterly unjustifiable, for Mary 
Warner of Winfarthing was not entitled to arms at all, and 
the coat itself is that granted to Warner of Essex in 1 609 — 
which further narrows the date of the concoction to 1609-13. 

Of later years the family have run the gamut on all three 
coats, the two bars, the lion rampant 2 and the two bucks 
couchant, according to Burke, using them all three. Lady 
Buxton is now using the lion coat in the first quarter, with 
the bars, etc. in the second. 

Now the cause of this sudden change or rechange from 
the two bars to the lion and the bucks was of course the 
acquisition by a family of the very interesting picture, before 
referred to, of one c Seneschal Buxton,' 3 which bears the arms 
argent a lion rampant or, impaling, or two bucks couchant. 

That the impaled coat of the two bucks could have 
nothing to do with the paternal coat of the Seneschal, but must 
have been his wife's coat, does not appear to have struck the 
family, but the achievement or picture has ever since had an 
honoured place on the family walls, though with an honesty 
very rarely to be found in such cases, they admit that the 
tradition is that it was given to their ancestor after the Disso- 

If the achievement be genuine (and I am bound to say 
that, after the examination kindly afforded me by Mrs. Buxton, 
I think it is, a view supported by such authority as Mr. 
Seymour Lucas, R.A., F.S.A., and others) it proves nothing 
except that an English man-at-arms bore a lion rampant and 

1 There seems to have been another brass to him in which he is described 
as ' Johannes de Buxton,' which is suspicious and looks like a later monument, 
and I greatly doubt if either monument is contemporary. 

2 Round, for once in a way, trips when in his Peerage Studies (p. 318) he 
speaks of the family * most properly ' bearing the lion rampant coat. 

3 I am not quite clear as to the force of the expression * Seneschal.' I 
see ' Seneschl de Brediston,' a Norfolk locality, occurs in the Liber Ru&eus, 
1 2 1 2, p. 476. 



married, apparently, a foreigner who bore two bucks couchant. 1 
But if it be a concoction of two or three hundred years ago, 2 
and my antiquarian knowledge fails me to say definitely that 
it is not, it may be that, after the 1589 Visitation, the 
Tibenham Buxtons right to the two bars may have been 
challenged, and that seeking about for a new coat they went 
to Buxton in Norfolk, and finding there the lion rampant, the 
coat of the Morleys, lords of that place, quietly appropriated 
it and concocted the achievement which has now a very 
respectable antiquity. 

Or it may be that the achievement was a genuine one be- 
longing to the Morleys, lords of Buxton. We know that 
Thomas, Lord Morley, who was lord of Buxton, and who died 
at Calais in 141 6, distinguished himself in the French wars, 
and at his death was Captain General of the Forces there. 
(His grandson Thomas, Lord Morley, was also fighting in 
France). We also know that his first wife was Joan (whose 
surname and arms are unknown, but for whom the impaled 
coat may be meant), and that he certainly bore a lion ram- 
pant, sometimes crowned and sometimes uncrowned, and he 
sealed an Indenture of War in 1420 with a lion not crowned 
(Blomefield's Norfolk, ii. 441). Still I cannot trace that the 
Morleys had anything to do with Bungay. 

For many years the family have assumed that the c Seneschal 
Buxton ' of the achievement was the Sir Peter de Buckton of 
Yorkshire, who served in the wars against the Scots and 
French, 3 1350 and 141 2 {Scrope and Grosvenor Roll, ii. 466), 
attended a great council in 1405, and whose name frequently 
occurs in Expeditions to Prussia and the Holy Land made by 
Henry Earl of Derby in 1390-3 (Cam. Soc). In 1393-4 he 
was party to a Yorkshire fine {Genealogist i. 96). He was 
Escheator for York in 1397 and in 141 1 was Mayor of 
Bordeaux (Rymer's Feeder a\ and may have been the c Bukton ' 
to whom Chaucer addresses an envoy. 

He was dead by 1423 (Pat. Roll, 1423, m. 7 ; Calr. 
p. 59). 

1 I cannot trace this coat in any English ordinary. 

2 It must not be forgotten that one of the Buxtons (ancestor of the pre- 
sent family) married an Anne Steward, and we all know how bold and unscru- 
pulous were the Steward-Styward concoctions at just about this period. 

3 Another of the Yorkshire family, Sir William Buckton, was going to the 
French wars in 1427 (Pat. Roll Calr. p. 404). 


Dr. Jessopp points out that he had some slight connection 
with Norfolk and Norfolk men, having been one of the feof- 
fees of a manor in Rockland Tofts in 1393 and a comrade of 
Sir Thomas Erpingham about the same time. 

But Sir Peter de Buckton the warrior cannot have been 
the man whose arms were found at Bungay, for when he was 
at the siege of Rouen in 141 9 the roll of arms there shows 
that he bore c quarterly ar. and gu. on the gules quarters three 
goats passant 2 & 1 of the first horned or.' The goat in 
fact belonged to the north county Buckton or Buxton (see Brit. 
Mus. Seals, 7907 ; and c Visitation of Northumberland/ Geneal. 
ii. 225). The Jenyns roll too (ante 1480) has a John de 
Buckton bearing argent a goat saliant sable with head and 
beard of the field and horns vert. 

So much for proof that the Buxtons of Tibenham have no 
right either to the lion coat or the two bucks coat, and that 
they can have had nothing to do with Sir Peter de Buckton of 

Now I think I shall be able to show that their real descent 
is in all probability from a very old and an armigerous family 
taking its name from the village of Buxton near Norwich. 

From an invaluable collection of notes of early charters, 
made about 1740, by Antony Norris, Esq., of Barton Turf 
(certainly the chief and most industrious genealogist we have 
ever had in Norfolk), and which is in my library, I am able to 
construct the rough pedigree set out at the end of this paper, 
which shows that for many hundred years there was a family 
of Buxtons settled at Oulton and Irmingland, both near 
Buxton itself, who in 1402 bore three bars gemelles, on a can 
ton a crescent — a coat remarkably like that granted or confirmed 
to the Buxtons of Tibenham in 1574. 

This coat appears on a deed, now Harl. Charter Brit. Mus. 
[53, 3 5 J, which shows that Robert Bucton was in 1402 a 
trustee of land in Newton 1 [Newton St. Faiths near Horsham 
and Buxton], his co-trustees being Sir Thomas de Morley, 
Lord Morley (the lord of Buxton) and John Glemham. 

Now the Tibenham Buxtons early held Glemham manor 
in Tibenham, and Dr. Jessopp astutely suggests that the 
Christiana Buxton, who occurs on a brass at Tibenham as 

1 Mr. Walter de Gray Birch, in his Brit. Mus. Seats, has incorrectly identified 
this with ' Newenton ' of Suffolk, and thrown every one off the scent for a 
long while. 


wife of Robert Buxton before 1528, was the Christiana 
Glemham, heiress of the manor, who brought it into the 
family — the coincidence of the two surnames and the two 
coats seems to me to make out a prima facie case. This 
Robert may have been the Robert Bucton who married the 
daughter and heiress of Sir John Braham of Capell, Suffolk, 
who died 49 Edward III. 1376 (Suff. Soc. Trans, viii. 138) 
or the Robert Bukton who was apparently a feoffee of land in 
Gorleston Bradwell and Yarmouth parva {Feet of Fines, Suffolk, 
6 Hen. IV. 1404, No. 17). 

A Robert Buckton who Sir Richard Gipps in his c Ancient 
Families of Suffolk' (Suff. Trans, viii. 141) says came of a 
family which were settled at Brome by marriage with Brampton 
and continued there till Robert Buckton left two daughters 
and heiresses, Philippa who married John Cornwallis of 
London, merchant, and Ann married [ j 
bore three bars gemelles arg. on a canton party per pale arg. 
and or a crescent, and were probably akin to the Tibenham 

Of course, however, the Suffolk Buxtons may have sepa- 
rated from the Norfolk family at a far earlier date, for I 
have notes of them in Suffolk. 

It will be noticed that the old Norfolk Buxtons — the 
Oulton family — had to do with Ormesby and the Fleggs, 
and it is curious to note that a family called Buckskyn or 
Buskin were people of considerable importance in the neigh- 
bourhood from 1272 till about 1400; and still more curious 
that almost contemporary with the Sir Peter de Buckton, 
the Yorkshire fighting knight, to whom the achievement 
was wrongly attributed, there was a Peter Buckskyn lord of 
Fishley, etc. He bore (P.R.O. Ancient Deeds AS. 275, 102) 
quite another coat — two bucks running ; and another of the 
family bore three bucks' heads (seals at Stow Bardolph), but 
that the two names had nothing to do with one another 
is clear from a fact that Peter Buckskyn in 1346 served on 
the same jury as John de Buxton. 

As to the ridiculousness of the College of Arms giving 
the new family of Buxton of Essex the adopted lion of the 
Shadwells, differenced by two mullets, one cannot but agree 
with Mr. Round. But the acme of absurdity has been still 
later reached by the sign of the village inn at Buxton in Nor- 
folk, which no doubt once bore the lion rampant of the 


Morleys, lords of the place for centuries, and which now 
shows the new coat of the rampant lion between the two 
mullets, whether from the fact that one of the Essex family 
lives in the neighbourhood, or from the house possibly 
selling the beer of Messrs. Truman, Hanbury, Buxton & Co., 
I know not. 

It should not be forgotten that there were others of the 
name who may have been the ancestors of the Tibenham 
family — e.g. Richard Buxton of East Rudham c baxter,' whose 
will is dated 1464 and who mentions his son Robert, to 
whom he leaves his 'jack, salett and pair of gauntlets/ In 
these troublous times able fighting men rose from the ranks 
very suddenly. Again there was a William Buxton of Forn- 
cett, whose will is dated 1 509, and who left a wife Margaret. 
His will is witnessed by a John Buxton, who may be the 
John Buxton of Forncett the first. 


William de Buketon. In 1234 called to warrant in a fine of 
land in Swannington and Buxston 

Elfridus (mentioned as \ 
his ancestor by Ralph 
de Bukeston) 

Nichs. de Bukeston = 

Nichs. de Bukeston 

Henry de Bukeston 
(heir to Nicholas) = 
(? see 4 Ancient Peti- 
tions,' Nos. 1799, 1 800) 

Ralph de Bukeston, 
probably the same as 

All mentioned in undated charters 
relating to land in Ormesby, which 
had to do with St. Paul's Hospital, 
Norwich. This hospital was founded 
with the consent of Richard de 
Beaufoy, and Bishop William de 
Beaufoy gave land to it, which 
Alan de Beaufoy confirmed (Bl. 
Norf. iv. 429). Now Buxton 
manor at the Conquest belonged 
to Ralph de Beaufoy, and passed 
through Hubert de Rye to his 
descendants the Morleys as of their 
barony of Hingham. These Bux- 
tons therefore, who also had to do 
with St. Paul's Hospital, were 
probably undertenants and took 
their names from the place 

Ralph de Bukeston = 

Clarice, ux. 1289 John held in Irmingland. (Norris "| probably 
of Oulton Charters, A 1 1 2B ; no date) / same as 

John de Buxton = 

John de Buxton held in Irmingland = 
before 1290 (A 11 3d) 5 do.inOulton " 
1306 (A 113c) 5 do. do. 1310-1 
(A 51c) 



Maude in 13 17 
held in Irming- 
land (A 113c) 

John de Buxton in 1 3 1 6 
held in Irmingland 

John de Buxton, jun., 
probably the same as John 
de Buxton, in 1344 trus- 
tee of the manor of 
Hevingham, and in 1346 
party to a fine in do., 
Buxton, etc. 5 probably 
the John de B. who in 
1350 gave land to his 
sisters Joan and Ivette 

Andrew de I Buxton : 
'son of John B. of 
Oulton' in 13 16 
(A113B). In 1347 
granted land in 
Irmingland abut- 
ting on land of 
heirs of John de 
Buxton 5 had grant 
of land in Irming- 
land same year 




Alice, living 1361- 
land in Oulton 

Geoffrey de Buxton = Maude, held land in Oulton, 1361 

John de Buxton, clerk, of Oulton. Will, 1377 (Reg. 
Heydon, fo. 141s) 

Robert Bucton, a trustee in 1402 of land in Newton St. 
Faith's near Buxton 5 bore 3 bars gemelles with a quarter 
charged with a crescent (Harl. Charter, Brit. Mus. 53, E 35) 

Blomefield, in his History of Norfolk, vi. 446, also refers to a Bertram de Buxton, lord of a 
manor in Buxton, succeeded by Geoffrey de Buxton, and his brother Richard states that in 
1355 Thomas de Buxton, rector of Bintre, settled his estate in Buxton on Jordan Wyche and 
his wife Beatrix and his sister Alice who seem to have been his sisters and heirs on the 
tabular pedigree. Forncett is very close to Tibenham, the place whence the family sprang. 

Then again there were Robert and John Buxton, websters and weavers, freemen 6f Norwich 
in 1379 and 1439. But on the whole I am inclined to think the family sprang from the 
Buxtons of Oulton, who bore arms in 1402 as shown above. 




These two deeds should have found a place among those abstracted in The 
Ancestor, ii. 129-47, and are numbered accordingly. 

xxxvi. bis. 1424 

Roger le Venables, parson of Rouestorne, and John Chardero chaplain, to 
Thomas le Grosuenor knight. Indenture granting all their messuages, lands, 
etc., in Bancroft, which they have of the feoffment of Hugh de Davenport son 
of Thomas de Davenport of Hendebury, with warrant. Witnesses : Edward 
de Weuere knight, Randle le Maynwarynge, Richard de Bulkyley, Robert de 
Wynnynton, Henry de Byrtheles, Robert de Nedham. Dated Bancroft, 
Saturday before St. German Bp. 1424. Two seals. 

xl. bis. 1333 

Roger lord of Tofft of the one part, and Roger son of Adam son of Henry 
de Tofft of the other. Indenture of grant of a piece of waste in the territory 
of Tofft, by the field formerly of Adam son of Henry de Tofft, to hold of the 
chief lord with commons and turbary in Tofft moss for two hearths (astro) 
which are upon the land late of said Adam, with warrant : for which grant 
Roger son of Adam quitclaimed to the lord of Tofft and his heirs a piece of 
waste between the Gorsticroft and the bounds of Holoreton. Witnesses : 
John de Carynton, John son of Hugh de Legh, Roger de Legcestre, William 
de Tabbelegh, Thomas de Tofft, William de Glasebrok, W. the clerk. Dated 
Tofft, tuesday before St. Barnabas, 1333. Seal. 


For the connection of the Grosvenors with Mobberley see The Ancestor, 
i. 171, 182 ; ii. 155. 

xcvu. [Before 1296] 

Robert de Dounes, with consent of Margery his wife, to Maud his 
daughter. Grant of all the land held of him by Richard Blagge in the 
town of Cherlegh, by Robert de Scharsale in Scharsale, and by Roger 
Ruffus in the town of Cherlegh, and the rent paid by Henry de Cherlegh 
and Richard son of Richard lords of Mottrum, to hold of grantor and his 
heirs to said Maud and the heirs of her body at a yearly rent of one clove at 
all saints for all demands saving foreign service to the lord of the land, with 
warrant. Witnesses : sir Reynold de Gray justice of Chester, sir Geoffrey 
de Chedle, sir Edmund Phyton knights, Thomas the clerk bailiff of Macles- 
feld, Richard de Bromale, John de Corona, Henry de Honford, John de Mot- 
trum, Jordan de Tyderinton, John de Sutton, Jordan de Bredbury, Adam 
Byran, Wivian de Foxwist. Undated. Seals of Dounes and wife attached 
with silken cords: (1) a buck tripping, s' robe . ti de dovn . . (2) a 
figure of a lady holding a lily, s' marg'ie de dovn . . 




These lands were granted to Downes and his wife in frank marriage by sir 
Edmund Phyton her brother (Ormerod ii. 600). Chorley is in Pownall, 
Scharsale perhaps Harehill in Alderley, and Mottrum is Mottram Andrew. 
Maud married William de Modburlegh, and a share of her lands came to 
Grosvenor. The date of this charter shows that the place assigned her in 
Mr. Helsby's pedigree of Downes cannot be correct. 

xcviii. [circa 1360] 

Petition of John de Leycestre to the prince, stating that he was in posses- 
sion of the manor of Modburlegh by assignment of sir Ralph de Modburlegh 
his uncle, and left a servant to keep the same, but Hugh de Chaterton and 
others of the county of Lancaster came and ousted him by force, while 
petitioner was out of the country, and still hold the manor without regard for 
the commandments of the prince, or of John Delues lieutenant of his justice of 
Chester, and praying in consideration of his costs both at Caleys and in Lon- 
don to re-enter and have again his inheritance. Undated. (French.) 

xcix. [1 361] 

Declaration of John de Wynkefeld knight, in a suit between John de 
Leicestre and Hugh de Chaderton and Margaret his wife (said to be daughter 
and heir of sir Ralph de Modburle knight), concerning the manor of Mod- 
burle and other the lands of sir Ralph in co. Chester, that sir Ralph came to 
him before Reynes, at the beginning of the sickness whereof he died, and said 
that before his journey to Gascony he enfeoffed certain chaplains, John Spend- 
loue and others, of said manor and lands upon certain conditions dependant 
on his will, and said that his heritage should not be dismembred, but should he 
die said chaplains were to enfeoff John de Leicester his nephew of the whole, 
to him and his heirs, but that this was private, because his wife had a daughter, 
which he did not hold for his, and she should never inherit, nor any other but 
said John ; and again a little before his death prayed him to aid his said 
nephew, as he has testified before the prince and others. Dated London, 
11 june 35 Edward III. (1 361). 


Pulford came to the Grosvenors of Holme by marriage with the heiress, 
and these deeds are therefore placed in this order (see Ormerod, ii. 854; 
iii. 148 ; Genealogist, new ser. xvi. 21). But at the partition of the Grosvenor 
estates, Pulford went to the Winningtons ; and of them was acquired by the 
Bulkleys, who much earlier had land at Church-on-Heath. Compare the 
Edgerley group. Both probably formed part of the Bulkley collection. 

c. [1268] 

Richard de Brueria to dame Emme de Pulford. Bond that he will never 
alien his land at Heath, or any part thereof, from Ralph his son and his heirs 
by Margaret daughter of the late Robert de Pulford, under a pain of 100/., 
binding himself and all his goods to the jurisdiction of the justice of Chester 
to enforce this agreement, and renouncing all appeal, exception, prohibition 
of the king, privilege of crusaders, prohibition of the lord of Cheshire and his 
justices, or remedy of the common or civil law. Witnesses : Richard parson 


of Pulford, John de Marcinton, Hugh de Pulford, William de Brex', Hugh 
de Hatton, Robert Jay (?), John the clerk. Dated at Heath, the ascension 
(ad ascenc'om d y ni) 1268. Seal, s' ric . . . brver . . . Endorsed, Heth. 

The genuineness of this deed is not beyond suspicion. The script is ex- 
tremely bad ; and several letters look like clumsy efforts at archaism. The 
date is added in fainter ink. The seal, of a common type, is impressed 
upon the back. 

ci. [1270-96] 

John de Mersinton and Sibil his wife to John de la Holt son of sir Richard 
de la Holt. Grant of all their land in the town of Neubold, in frank marriage 
with Emme daughter of Simon de Hatton, and all right in the town aforesaid, 
to hold of grantors and their heirs to said John and Emme and the heirs of 
their bodies, remainder to grantors, with warrant. Witnesses : sir Reginald 
de Grey justice of Chester, Robert de Huxeleg' constable of Chester castle, 
William de Bonebury, William de Spurstou clerk, William Bernard, Richard 
Munxhul, Robert de Thicknis, Richard de Bostoc, Stephen the clerk. Un- 
dated. Two seals: (1) a lion: s' ioh : de : marchintovn. (2) a bird: s' sibilie 


Sir Richard del Holt is said to have been grandson of Simon de Newton 
of No. cxii. (Ormerod, iii. 209). 

en. [circa 1280] 

Hugh de Hatton to Agnes de Bostok and the heirs of her body. Grant 
and confirmation of all the lands, culturas, possessions, liberties and commons 
which John de Mersinton and Sybil his wife gave by charter to said Agnes 
and the heirs of her body. Witnesses : William de Haurthin sheriff of 
Cheshire, Griffin de Waran', Th[omas] de Bella aqua, Th[omas] de Hertul, 
William de Huxley, John of the same. Undated. Seal, a lion and (dragon?). 

cm. [1295-1315] 

Robert de Pulford to Philip 4 my brother ' for life. Grant indented of 
his land and tenement (with dowers, if they fall in) with messuages, meadows, 
etc., in Neubold by Buyrton, to hold of grantor and his heirs to grantee and 
his assigns (saving the chief lords and men of religion) at a rent of one rose, 
with warrant. Witnesses : John de Leg'e, William de Mulnetfon], John de 
Golburn, Robert de Belewe, David de Barton, Robert de Codinton. Un- 
dated. Fragment of seal. 


These two places are in the Lostock neighbourhood ; but the following 
deeds do not disclose any relation to the rest of the series. 

civ. 1 3 5 1 

John Spendeloue chaplain to Ellen daughter of Walter de le More. 
Grant of all his lands and tenements in Sondisfordelegh in Kyltinggusfeld, with 
turbary pertaining thereto in the town of Overtabbelegh, and liberties and 
easements in the town of Nethertabbelegh, to hold the said tenements of 



grantor and his heirs, and the commons and easements aforesaid of the chief 
lords, to Ellen her heirs and assigns, with warrant. Witnesses: Adam de 
Tabbelegh, Thomas Dayneres, Hugh de Tofte, Hugh de Pekemere, Thomas 
de Tofte. Dated Overtabbelegh, monday after St. John Baptist, 1351. 
Seal gone. 

cv. [1369] 

Hugh del Holes de Pykemere to Margaret late wife of Hugh le Bruyn. 
Grant of 10/. yearly rent issuing from a moiety of the lands late of Hugh de 
Pykemere her father, to hold for life of grantor and his heirs. Dated Pykemere, 
Sunday after St. Helen 43 Edward III. (1369). Seal gone. 

cvi. [1369] 

Hugh del Holes and Margaret late wife of Hugh le Bruyn. Indenture, 
being a defeasance of grant of 10/. rent of the moiety of lands late of Hugh de 
Pykemere father of Margaret, provided that she be not ousted from the term 
she has in the moiety of all lands that were her said father's at the time of her 
marriage. Dated Pykemere, sunday after St. Elena 43 Edward III. (1369). 
Seal gone. (French). 


This abbey, which was first founded at Poulton in Cheshire, near Pulford 
and Eaton on the Dee, was removed to Leek in Staffordshire early in the 
reign of Henry III. Byley and other lands were acquired by the Shakerleys 
after the dissolution. 

cvi 1. [circa 1230 ?] 

Emme daughter of Warin de ByueP to the abbot and convent of Deula- 
cresse. Grant of all the land which her father conferred upon her in marriage 
in ByueP and Rauenescroft, to hold of her and her heirs at a yearly rent ot 
id. at Michaelmas, in consideration of 3 marks, with warrant. Witnesses : 
Joceram de Hellesby, Richard de Kyngeslegh, Warin parson of Middlewych, 
Simon de Neuton, John de Haccoluest\ Undated. Seal gone. 

Byley and Ravenscroft near Middlewich. 


Henry de Hulmo to the abbot and convent of Deulacres. Quitclaim ot 
his manor of Upper Hulme and a portion of the land called Peselondes lying 
by the Roches (Juxta Rupem), with warrant, in consideration of 27 marks for 
gersom. Witnesses : William Wyther, Robert de Chetelton knights, Richard 
de Rodeyerd, Henry le Couderey, William de Waterfall, Nicholas de Clyfton. 
Undated. Seal gone. 

These places are in the parish of Leek, co. Stafford. 

cix. [1369] 

Edward Prince of Aquitaine and Wales, Duke of Cornwall and Chester, 
to the Abbot and Convent of Dieulencresce. Letters patent granting all the 
lands and tenements which they and their tenants have held enclosed upon the 
moor of Rudheth by the town of Bilegh, which are 187 J acres and 7 perches, 
to hold at a rent of sixpence an acre payable to the exchequer of Chester. 


Dated at Chester, 30 May 43 Edw. III. (1369). Seal of arms — a shield of 
England with a label — sigill' * edwardi * fil' ' regis * angl' * comitis * 
cestr' * 

ex. 1 65 1 

John Whittingham of the Cittie of Chester gentleman to John Amson of 
Leighes yeoman. Paper writing indented, being a release and quitclaim of 
one meadow closse pasture and parcell of land in Sproston, comonly called 
the great meadow, lying beyond the river of Dane neare adioyninge to the said 
John Amson's tenement within Leighes, which grantor doth clayme by assur- 
ance to him made by John Trevett of Sproston yeoman, for a terme unex- 
pired. Dated 12 Aprill 165 1. (S d ) John Whittingham. Witnesses: John 
Amson, William Woodcocke, Hugh Whishall. Plain seal. 

One of the Shakerleys married John Amson's daughter. 



The connection of the different branches of Bulkley is thus given by Mr* 
Helsby (Ormerod, iii. 269) : — 

William de Bulkilegh of Bulkley 


William de Bulkilegh Felice= Robert de Bulkilegh of Eyton = Agnes 
of Bulkley and Alstanton 


1 1 

Robert de Bulkilegh Richard de Bulkilegh Roger 

of Eyton and Alstanton of Cheadle, jure uxoris 


John de Bulkilegh Robert de Bulkilegh 

of Eyton of Alstanton 

A A 

The pedigree will illustrate the following deeds, which support it, so far as 
they go. 


The plumbum, lead, or phat was the vessel in which salt was crystallized by 
boiling the brine. The salina, or salt work, was the establishment where this 
process took place ; a burgage tenement, carrying with it the right to a supply 
of brine from the wich, or saltpit, in proportion to the number of its phats. 
See the account of Droitwich in Nash's Worcestershire and the documents 
there printed. 

cxi. [before 1232] 

P[eter] clerk of the earl of Chester to Thomas de Croxston. Grant, for 
his homage and service, of half a salt work of the fee of Roger de Meinwar% 


■and half another salt work of the fee of Ralph de Brerton, which were given 
to grantor by Gilbert the chaplain of Middlewich ; and of all the land which 
Hernisius the chaplain held between that which was of William Brun and the 
water course by the earl's bakehouse, to hold of the grantor and his heirs at a 
yearly rent of 14J., charged also with js. 8</. to the house of the hospital of 
Jerusalem, with warrant. Witnesses : Lidulf the sheriff, Richard his son, 
Richard Lokeharm, Richard de Cliue, Henry de Weueria, John de Aculues- 
ton, Stephen son of Edrihc, Hingulf son of Machtild, Hugh the smith (fabro), 
Richard the clerk. Undated. Seal. . . . m : petri clerici 

cxii. [circa 1230 ?] 

Simon de Neuton to Richard de Wibbinbury. Grant, for his homage and 
service, of all the land held of grantor by Henry son of Wlfrich in Wichefeld, 
which is of grantor's demesne, to hold of grantor and his heirs, with common 
and other easements pertaining to the town of Sutton and Wichefeld, at a yearly 
rent of \2d., with warrant. Witnesses : Augustin dean of Middlewich, Th. 
de Warihul, William de Weuere, Henry his brother, Warin de Croxton, John 
de Aculuist', Henry de Hatishale, Peter de Becheton, Richard Bernard, Henry 
the clerk of Mottrum. Undated. Seal. . . . simonis de nev . . . 


Richard, son of Hugh Bossel, to Christian his daughter. Grant of a saltwork 
in Middlewich, being that which the Abbot and convent of Basingwerk gave 
to Hugh Boschel father of the said Richard, lying broadways between the 
saltwork of Richard son of Bate and that formerly of Matthew de Craunach, 
and longways between the highway and the land of the abbot of Deulacrees. 
Witnesses : Sir Hugh de Venables and Sir William de Brerton knights, Alex- 
ander de Bonevile, Robert de Bolkyleg', Thomas Craket, Robert Saney and 
William son of Simon the clerk. Undated. Seal. 

cxiv. [1305] 

Richard son of Hugh Boschel of Middlewich to Robert de Bolkylewe, his 
heirs or assigns. Grant and quitclaim of a salt work of 4 leads in Middle- 
wich, between land late of Richard Payn and land of Thomas Malbol, in con- 
sideration of 1 oj. to grantor * in his need.' Witnesses : Richard de Rauenes- 
croft, Henry de Swetenham, Simon son of Yngulf, William son of Simon the 
clerk (clerici), Hugh son of Emmot. Dated Middlewich, Wednesday the vigil 
of St. Mary Magdalen 33 Edward [I.] (1305). Fragment of seal. 

cxv. [1307] 

Thomas son of Richard de Cleyteford to Robert de Bulkylegh and Felice 
his wife. Grant of a salt work in Middlewich, between that of the abbot of 
Deulacres and that which Richard Golde held broadways, and longways from 
the highway to the way leading towards Lonset, and warrant thereof with its 
appurtenances of 6 leads. Witnesses : Richard de Fouleshurst sheriff of 
Cheshire, Alexander de Baunuile, John de Coton, Gilbert Dodefin, Hugh 
Raher, Hugh son of Emmot, Richard de Rauenescroft, Thomas son of Pimcoc. 
Dated Middlewich, friday after St. John ante portam latinam 35 Edward [I.] 
(1307). Seal: s' thome de clait . . . 


cxvi. [1308] 

Christian daughter of Richard Bussel of Middlewich to Robert de Bulki- 
legh and Felice his wife, daughter of Henry le Barbour, and Richard son of 
the said Robert and Felice and to the heirs of the said Richard. Grant of a 
saltwork of eight leads in the town of Middlewich, which the said Christian 
had of the gift of Richard her father, lying broadways between the saltwork of 
Margery formerly wife of Richard Finchet and that of Richard son of Bate, 
and longways between the highway and the saltwork of the Abbot ofDeulacres. 
Witnesses : Richard de Fouleshurst then sheriff of Chester, John de Coton, 
Gilbert Dodefin, Stephen Dandi, Henry de Swetenham, Thomas son of 
Pimcoc, Adam the clerk. Dated at Middlewich, Thursday after St. Gregory 
1 Edw. II. (1308). Seal, a peacock: leel svi. 

cxvi 1. 

Martin son of Gerveys of Middlewich to Robert de Bulkelegh and Felice 
his wife and Richard their son. Grant of a saltwork in Middlewich lying long- 
ways between the highway and the Wichbrok and broadways between the 
house of William son of Thomas son of Walter and the saltwork of Richard 
Ruskin, with a rent of one barbed arrow out of a saltwork which was formerly 
of Matthew de Craunache in Middlewich by Neweset, to hold to the said 
Robert and Felice and Richard and the heirs and assigns of the said Richard. 
Witnesses : Richard de Fouleshurst, sheriff of Chester, Adam del Schagh,, 
William son of John de Coton, Thomas son of Amice, Ralph Selisoule, Thomas 
Hullesone, Thomas Caus, Richard de Warihull, Thomas Doot. Undated. 
Seal gone. 

cxvi 1 1. 

William son of William son of Hugh of Middlewich to Robert de Bulki- 
legh. Grant of a saltwork with gardens and curtilages in Middlewich, as the 
ancestors of the grantor held the same, paying two shillings yearly to the lord 
of the Holt. Witnesses : John de Coton, Adam del Schagh, Thomas de 
Sladehurst, Thomas son of Amice, Thomas Doot, Richard de Warihull. Un- 
dated. Seal with a device of a fleur-de-lys. s' iohis de [mavnwrvnc ?]. 


William son of William son of Hugh of Middlewich and Christian daugh- 
ter of Richard Busschel of the same place* to Robert de Bulkilegh and Richard 
his son and the heirs and assigns of the said Richard the son. Quitclaim of 
those lands and tenements which the said Robert and Richard had of the 
gift of the said Richard Busschel and the said Christian and Adam del Schawe 
of Middlewich. Witnesses : Peter de Calvilegh, Richard del Schawe, Richard 
de Warihull, John de Boyliston, Thomas Caus. Undated. Two seals. 

cxx. 1 3 14 

Robert de Mohaut steward of Chester to Richard son of Robert de Bulke- 
legh, his heirs and assigns. Grant and sale of all the crop of the wood of 
Netherepeuere, as enclosed, to lop, leaving on every root a trunk, and to lop all 
the boughs at the fork a man's foot from the trunk, and the top of the trunk 
where it forks also, and if the crop of any oak be dead he may lop that one 



foot below the dead wood, for the space of six years, from St. Michael in monte 
^umba until 15 days of april be past, with warrant. Dated Middlewich, 
Wednesday after St. Luke Ev. 8 Edward II., 13 14. (French.) Seal with 
arms : a lion rampant — s' roberti de movhavt : 

The purpose of this and the two deeds next following was probably to 
procure fuel for boiling the brine. 

cxxi. [13 1 6] 

Robert de Mohaut steward of Chester to Richard son of Robert de 
Bulkelegh, his heirs and assigns. Grant and sale of all his trees of his wood of 
Nethyr Peuere great and small, green and dry, standing upon the circuit of the 
palisade or within it, to cut, lop, sell and carry, or to burn, within the next 
8 years at any time of the year, with warrant. Dated Boselegh, Sunday before 
the conversion of St. Paul 9 Edward II. (13 16). (French.) Seal with arms 
(as the last). 

cxxn. 1 3 1 6 

John de Wetenale to Richard son of Robert de Bulkilegh, his heirs and 
assigns. Sale of all oaks within the hedge of his hey of Sparwegreue and upon 
the dykes and hedges thereof, with two oaks between said hey and the hall of 
Sparwegreue, to fall from the beginning of winter to the middle of april, and 
to work, etc., at all times of the year until christmas 13 18, with warrant. 
Dated Sparwegreue, tuesday after the assumption 1 3 1 6. Seal : a bird. 

cxxiii. 1 3 1 7 

Richard Ruskyn of Middlewich to John his son and Rose daughter of 
William son of Thomas Malbul. Grant in frank marriage of a salt work with 
8 leads in Middlewich from that of Martin son of Gervase longways to the 
leat, and broadways from that of Robert de Bolkylegh to the Mulneweye, to 
hold of grantor his heirs or assigns to said John and Rose and the heirs be- 
tween them begotten, with warrant, remainder to the next heirs of the blood, 
in consideration of 3 marks. Witnesses : Richard de Foulushurst sheriff ot 
Chester, Robert de Bolkylegh, Adam de le Schawe, Adam de Bostoc, John 
Roer. Dated Middlewich, sunday St. Philip and St. James 1 3 1 7. Seal gone. 

cxxiv. 1 3 1 8 

Robert son of William de Bulkylegh to sir Robert Towchet rector of 
Middlewich. Grant of all his lands tenements rents etc. in co. Chester, 
namely in Eyton, Cliue, Codynton, Middlewich, Sutton, Neuton, Hulm and 
Alsacher, for life, with all his goods, remainder as to lands in Eyton, Alsacher 
and Codynton to grantor's heirs, as to lands in Middlewich, Sutton, Neu- 
ton and Hulm to Richard, grantor's son, and his heirs, with warrant. 
Witnesses : John de Sapy justice of Cheshire, Richard de Fouleshurst sheriff, 
Adam de Bostoc, Robert de Croxton, Roger de Toft, John Raher, Adam del 
Schawe. Dated Middlewich, sunday before St. Bartholomew 13 18. Seal. 

This charter shows the connection between the Cheadle and Eyton Bulk- 
leys. Sutton and Newton are on the outskirts of Middlewich ; Hulm appar- 
ently is Church Hulme, or Holmes Chapel. Eyton is Eaton near Davenham. 


cxxv. 1 32 1 

Robert son of Martin son ot Gerveys of Middlewich to Robert de Bulky - 
legh and Felice his wife and Richard their son. Grant of a piece of land in 
Middlewich, together with a salt work in Middlewich, which salt work lies 
longways between the land of Richard Ruskyn and the high way, and broad- 
ways between the land of Robert de Bulkylegh and the road towards Kynder- 
ton, to hold to them and to the heirs of the body of the said Richard for a 
term of 24 years from the feast of the Annunciation 1321 at a rent of one 
rose, and after that term at a rent of 40J. if they wish to hold the pre- 
mises. Witnesses : Adum de Bostok, John de Coton, John Roer, Thomas 
Dodefym, Richard de Schagh. Dated at Middlewich, Friday after St. Chad, 
1320. Seal. Endorsed: Rob' Martinessone. 

cxxvi. [circa 1321] 

Thomas son of Hugh son of Pymme of Middlewich to Robert de Bulky- 
legh and Felice his wife and Roger their son. Grant of half a salt work, lying 
broadways between the salt pan of Hugh de Venables and the salt pan of Henry 
de Swetenham, and longways between the highway and a piece of land held 
by Robert de Bulkylegh, to hold for a term of eighteen years from the 
feast of the Annunciation 1 3 2 1 , at a rent of sixpence yearly. Witnesses : 
John de Cotun, Nicholas son of Simon, William son of Nicholas, Richard son 
of Geoffrey, William the clerk. Undated. Seal with a shield [? quarterly 
indented]. s* willi fil warini. 

cxxvii. 1 32 1 

Thomas son of Hugh son of Pymme of Middlewich to Robert de Bulky- 
legh and Felice his wife and Richard their son. Grant of the fourth part of 
a messuage in the town of Middlewich, lying between the messuage of Hugh 
de Venables, which Thomas son of Thomas son of Randal holds to farm, and 
the messuage of the said Thomas the grantor, and between the highway and 
the garden of Thomas the reeve, together with the fourth part of a salt work 
lying in Wolreuepol, and the fourth part of a meadow between the leat of 
Middlewich and the land of Margery wife of Richard, 6d. rent out of the 
messuage of William Tappetrassche, the grantor's share of the same messuage 
with its curtilage, and of a curtilage which Robert son of Nicholas formerly 
held to farm : to hold to the said Robert, Felice and Richard and to the heirs 
of the body of the said Richard, or to the right heirs of the said Richard. 
Witnesses : Adam de Bostok, John de Coton, John Roer, Henry de 
Ravenescroft, Richard de Schagh. Dated at Middlewich, Friday in Easter 
week, 1 32 1. Seal injured. Endorsed : Thomas Hullessone Pimmessone. 

cxxviii. [1330] 

John Ruskyn of Middlewich to Richard son of Robert de Bulkilegh and 
Agnes his wife. Grant of a saltwork with curtilage in Middlewich, between 
that of Richard de Bulkilegh and the Wichbrok, and between that which 
William Marchis holds of said Richard and a way leading to the Wichbrok, 
to hold to Richard and Agnes and the heirs of Richard for ever, with warrant. 
Witnesses : Robert de Bulkilegh, Richard del Schagh, Richard de Warihull, 
Nicholas son of Simon, John de Boileston, William son of Michael. Dated 



Middlewich, tuesday after the annunciation 4 Edward III. (1330). Seal. 
. . iohis 

cxxix. [1330] 

Thomas son of Hugh Pymmesone of Middlewich to Robert de Bulkilegh 
and Richard his son and the heirs of the said Richard. Quitclaim of the 
moiety of a saltwork in Middlewich which the said Thomas granted to Robert 
de Bulkilegh and to Felice his wife and Richard their son. Witnesses : 
John de Coton, Robert de Croxton, John de Lughteburgh, Richard del 
Schagh, Richard de Warihull, Nicholas son of Simon. Dated at Middlewich,. 
Monday the eve of SS. Philip and James 4 Edw. III. (1330). Seal with a 
device of a man's head (?). s' iohis . . . 

cxxx. [1331] 

Robert le Fogheler of Middlewich to Richard son of Robert de Bulkilegh 
and to Agnes his wife. Grant of a salt work with a messuage and a curtilage 
and the appurtenances in Middlewich, longways between the garden of 
Richard Batesone and the highway, and broadways between the salt work of 
Robert del Wodehouses and the garden of Richard son of Michael, to hold to 
Richard and Agnes and to the heirs of Richard, with warrant. Witnesses : 
Robert de Bulkilegh, Richard de Warihull, Nicholas son of Simon, Richard 
del Schagh, William son of Michael, John de Boyleston. Dated Middlewich,. 
tuesday before St. Boniface 5 Edward III. (1331). Seal, with device of a 
lion rampant, s' ricardi de warihvl. 

cxxxi. [1 341] 

Richard son of Robert de Bulkilegh to John son of Hugh de Cholmundelegh 
and to Felice his wife. Counterpart indenture of grant of a saltwork of eight 
leads in Middlewich, formerly of John de Lughteburgh, which the grantor 
held by the grant of the said Felice, and of a curtilage in the same town, 
lying between the lane which leads over against the Holt and the Wichbrok, 
and between the lands of Robert the chaplain and Robert Kel, to hold for the- 
life of the said Felice. Witnesses : Adam de Bostok, Richard de Croxton, 
Richard del Schagh, William Swan, Thomas de Sladehurst. Dated at 
Middlewich, Tuesday after St. Matthias 15 Edw. III. (1 341). Two seals; 
with devices. 

This Felice is not the widow of Robert de Bulkilegh, for he left a widow 
named Agnes. See No. cxlvi. 

cxxxn. 1349 

Richard de Okelegh, chaplain, to William son of William Druri of Middle- 
wich and Margery his wife. Grant of that messuage and two curtilages with 
a saltwork in Middlewich which the said Richard had of the gift of the said 
William son of William, to hold to the said William and Margery and to the : 
heirs of their bodies, with remainder to the right heirs of the said William son 
of William. Witnesses : Richard de Bulkylegh, Richard del Shawe, William 
de Haregreve. Dated at Middlewich, Tuesday after St. John before the Latin, 
gate 1349. Seal. 


cxxxiii. [1375] 

William de Bulkylegh of Chedle to William Prydyn chaplain, Robert de 
Elmeshale, Richard de Pollesworth and Jevan Artiduwell. Grant of a salt 
work in Middlewich. Dated at the castle of Chester, Monday after St. Giles, 
49 Edw. III. (1375). Sealed with a round seal of the virgin and child, ave 
maria gr'a pl . . . 


Near Middlewich : in Domesday Aculvestune. The earlier form of the 
name is found among the witnesses in Nos. cvii. cxi. cxii. 


John lord of Ocliston to William son of Thomas son of Emme de Oclis- 
ton. Grant of all the land and tenement which Thomas son of Emme, father 
of said William, and Ellen mother of said William, held in the town of Oclis- 
ton with appurtenances, viz. a messuage with curtilage and croft as enclosed by 
metes and bounds, one selion by the Chircheway, one called the Brodelond 
between the garden and the high way, 5 butts in the Mulnecroft, one selion 
called the Brodelond with the Reue in the Mulecroft (sk), with one volatus 
in the same town together with an addition {aumentd) of one selion before his 
house door, to hold of grantor his heirs and assigns with housbold haybold 
quittance of pannage in all groves of Ocliston etc., at a yearly rent of id. at 
midsummer and two hens at christmas, with warrant. Witnesses : John de le 
Holt, Richard lord of Croxton, Richard son of Robert of the same, Hugh de 
Tyuwe, Thomas de Weuere, William de Bostoc, Gilbert Dodefyn, Hugh Raer, 
William de Wauerton, William the clerk. Undated. Seal broken. 

cxxxv. [13 1 8] 

John son of William son of Thomas de Ocleston to Margery late the wife 
of William son of Thomas de Ocleston. Grant of two thirds of the messuage 
late of said William, grantor's father, in Ocleston, and two selions of land 
therein, one by the Grenelondes, the other in the Bruggefeld, to hold for her 
life of grantor and his heirs, remainder to grantor, with warrant. Witnesses : 
Robert de Bulkilegh, John de Coton, William de Ocleston, Randle de 
Wauerton, John del Brook. Dated Ocleston, tuesday after the nativity of 
St. John Bapt. 11 Edward II. (13 18). Seal. 

cxxxvi. [13 . . ] 

John de Ocleston to Hamon son of [John ?] Dobbesone. Grant of the 
manor of Ocleston with lands, rents, royalties, etc., and with all his rents and 
services in the town of Middlewich ; also a piece of turbary in Litulstang 
... in Dudfynesmosse, with warrant. Witnesses : William del Holt, William 
de Bulkyley, Warin de Croxton, Richard Brotheresone, Richard de Cleyte- 
ford. Dated Ocleston, tuesday St. Lawrence' day, . . Edward III. Seal. 
S. Petri . . steping. (Defective.) 

cxxxvu. [1345] 

William son of John de Ocleston to Richard son of Robert de Bulkilegh 
the elder and Agnes his wife and the heirs of their bodies. Quitclaim of all 




the land and water they have of the grant of William ' my son ' and Christian 
his wife in exchange for other lands in Ocleston, with warrant. Witnesses : 
Richard de Somerford, Richard de Croxton, Hugh de Tofte, William de 
Wauerton. Dated Ocleston, friday after St. Peter in cathedra 19 Edward III. 


See the title Newbold, above. 


Ketel son of Gilbert de la More to Robert de la More his lord. Grant 
that he nor his heirs will not give pledge nor sell the bovate of Eggersley 
which he holds of said Robert, save to Robert or his heirs, on any necessity. 
Witnesses : Walkelin de Arderne, William de Boydel, Walter de Arderne, 
Robert de Pulfort, Ralph son of Richard, John de Lauerket' (Larkton ?), 
Robert de Belleue, William the clerk. Undated. (No seal.) 


Robert son of Walter del Heth to Nicholas son of Richard de Troghford. 
Grant of all his lands etc. within all the bounds of Eggerley at the date of 
this charter, with warrant. Witnesses : William de Golburne, David de 
Malpas, William de Broxun. Undated. Seal with arms : a bend between 
three crescents, with three charges on the bend, s' g[a]uteri de [f]entone. 


Nicholas son of Richard de Troghford to Robert son of Walter del Heth 
and Auilia his wife and the heirs of their bodies. Grant of all the lands etc. 
which he had by feoffment of said Robert in Eggerley, remainder to the right 
heirs of said Robert. Witnesses : William de Golborne, David de Malpas, 
Ralph lord of Pleymundestowe, William de Broxon, Robert le Bor. Undated. 
Seal gone. 


Robert del Hett to John son of Robert de Berton. Letter of attorney to 
deliver seisin of all his lands in Mukul Aldreshay to Nicholas son of Richard 
de Trogford. Undated. Seal with arms, as No. cxxxix. 

cxlii. [1425] 

Award indented of William of Bulkeley, in a dispute between Henry of 
Spurstowe John Williamson of the Heth and Hugh of Cheswys (?) on the one 
part, and Robert of Bulkeley of the Bryon on the other, for lands in Chestre, 
Chirchumheth, Mekull Aldreshey and Eggerley, and for goods and chattels 
that were to John the Tanner of Chester and to * the saide William' ; 1 namely 
that said Robert shall release the lands to said Hugh in fee simple without war- 
rant, and said Hugh shall let those in Mecull Aldresheye to said Robert for life 
at a peppercorn rent, said Robert delivering up all deeds etc. ; said Henry and 
John to retain the above mentioned goods and chattels received of Ithell 
Granore, executor to William of the Heth, or Jonet his wife and executrice, 
and said John to sue the executors for goods undelivered, said Robert aiding 
in the recovery thereof. Dated 12 june 3 Henry VI. (1425). Seal gone. 

1 William of the Heth father of John is meant, as appears later. 


CXLIII. [1426] 

Writ addressed to the sheriff of Cheshire, to command John del Heth 
(son of William del Heth) and Margaret his wife, Henry de Spurstowe and 
Hugh Cheswys (?) to render to Thomas de Brundelegh of Wystanston 5 messu- 
ages, 1 00 acres of land, 1 o acres of meadow, 1 o acres of pasture and 1 o acres of 
wood in Chirchenheth, Eggerley, Aldresay and Chirton, whereof Hormus del 
Heth (son of Roger del Heth, and cousin of Thomas de Brundelegh, who is 
his heir) was seised on the day of his death. Tested at Chester, 27 december 
5 Henry [VI.] (1426). 

Endorsed by Richard de Werburton, the sheriff, with the name of John 
de Sonde, surety for plaintiff, and two summoners. 

cxliv. [1454] 

Margaret formerly wife of John son of William del Heth to Thomas son 
of Arthur de Troghford, John his brother, and Robert Spenser clerk. Grant 
of all her lands, rents, etc., in the towns of Chirchanheth, Great Aldersay, 
Eggerley, Chirton, Aldefort and in the city of Chester, with warrant. Wit- 
nesses : Robert Spender of Qwechirche, Henry Coke of Hoton, Thomas 
Pycton of Troghford, Richard Fecher of Chirchenhethe, Nicholas Johnson of 
Chirchenhethe. Dated Chirchenhethe, friday before michaelmas 3 3 Henry VI. 
(1454). Seal. 


CXLV. [13 I 2] 

Henry son of Henry de Briddesmere to William son of Hugh de Gresti, 
his heirs and assigns. Grant of a piece of his land called Heyne Rudyng in 
the town of Briddesmere, with the reversion of the dower when it shall fall in, 
and pasture for all his beasts upon grantor's waste near and far in the town of 
Briddesmere, so that grantor his heirs and assigns may not enclose, nor William 
and his heirs have a moiety of any enclosure, rendering services to the chief 
lord, with warrant. Witnesses : Henry de Thickenes, William the physician, 
William de Birchor', Richard his brother, Richard the smith. Dated Briddes- 
mere, Saturday after the translation of St. Thomas 6 Edward II. (13 12). 
Seal gone. 

Alice widow of Henry de Briddesmere was suing for dower in z Edw. II. 
(Plea Rolls). 

CXLVI. [1347] 

Geoffrey de Denston chaplain to Robert de Bulkylegh of Alstanston the 
elder. Copy indenture of grant of the manor of Eyton by Daueneham, all 
his messuages and lands in Briddesmere and Herteforde, and the reversion of 
all messuages and lands which Agnes late wife of Robert son of William de 
Bulkylegh holds in dower in the towns of Alsacher Herteford and Codynton 
of grantor's inheritance and of her said husband's gift with remainder to grantor, 
to hold to said Robert the elder and the heirs of his body of the chief lords, 
remainder to his right heirs, with warrant. Witnesses : Philip de Eggerton, 
Henry de Motelowe, Richard de Hunsterton, William de Northbury, Randle 
le Bruyn. Dated Eggerton, friday after St. Hilary 20 Edward III. (1347). 

3 2 



Hoole, Newton, the three Troffords, and Dunham on the Hill, or Stony 
Dunham, are a group of villages lying near Chester on the north and east. 
They are therefore grouped together. There is nothing to connect these 
deeds either with the Grosvenor or the Bulkley series, though the Winningtons 
(who were co-heirs of Grosvenor of Holme) appear to have had some interest 
in Newton. 

cxlvii. [1333 ?] 

Philip de Hole to David de Hadelegh, citizen of Chester. Grant of two 
pieces of land in Hole, which John de Ines and John del . . . ston 1 of Chester 
formerly held for a term of years, one by the road from Chester to Troghford, 
the other by land formerly of Robert de Maclesfeld and extending to Wyr- 
haleswey, also common of pasture and turbary, housbote and haybote, etc., 
with warrant. Witnesses : David de Eggerton sheriff of Cheshire, Robert de 
Huxlegh, William de Coton, William de Hadelegh, James de Coughhull, Philip 
de Prestelond, Robert de Sutton, Henry the clerk. Undated. Defective. 
Seal gone. 

A Philip de Hole occurs 3 3 Edw. I. ; but David de Eggerton was sheriff 
(according to the list in Helsby's Ormerod) in 1333. Henry the clerk occurs 
in 1335, James de Coghull 1345. Nos. cliii— v. 

1 ? Crokeston. Only the bottom of five letters remains. 


Thomas Taylour and Alane de Hadelegh his wife to Sir Hugh de 
Hibernia, chaplain of the parish church of Tatenale, and sir Richard le 
Roter, chaplain of the parish church of Codynton. Quitclaim of land in the 
town of Hole (which Thomas Palmer and Maude his wife had of their feoff- 
ment) for a sum of money paid, with warrant. Witnesses : David de Beeston, 
William de Cholmundelegh, Richard de Spurstowe, John Rathebon, Ken' de 
Cholmundelegh. Dated Malpas, thursday before St. Alban M. 1369. Seal 
(? armorial). 

cxlix. [1372] 

Hugh de Hibernia, formerly chaplain of Tatenhale, to John de Neubold 
chaplain, and Simon formerly priest of Hanlegh. Grant of 4 acres of land in 
Hole called Haddeleyslond, with warrant. Witnesses : Richard de Huxlegh, 
John de Rosumgreue, Richard de Herthull. Dated Chester, Sunday before St. 
Alban 46 Edward III. (1372). Seal gone. 

cl. [1373] 

John de Newbold and Simon de Yoksale chaplains to Alexander le Belle- 
yotter citizen of Chester. Grant of the moiety of a field in Hole called Hadelegh - 
feld, with warrant. Witnesses : Lawrence de Dutton knight sheriff of 
Cheshire, John de Scolehall escheator of Cheshire, William de Troghford, 
John Adamson citizen of Chester, John de Hole. Dated Hole, the vigil of 
the assumption 47 Edward III. (1373). Two seals. 



CLI. 1 244 

Philip son of Hamund son of With de Neuton to William son of Cecily 
' my wife/ Grant made in the abbot of Chester's court of a moiety of his 
land in the field of Neuton, with his hall etc., with toft and croft and orchard 
etc., to hold to him and his heirs only during grantor's life, and afterwards to 
whomsoever he will give or sell it, at a yearly rent of zs. to grantor and his 
heirs, with warrant. Witnesses : sir Nicholas de Winleie constable of Chester, 
Adam the vintner and Richard Bovnz sheriffs of Chester, Richard de Kynges- 
leie, Adam de Heselbi {sic), William son of Kenwreich de Neuton, Hugh de 
Hool. Dated 1244, tuesday before Easter, at Chester. Seal. (Beautifully 


William son of Philip son of Hamon de Neuton to Robert his brother. 
Grant of a moiety of his land in the town and territory of Neuton, to hold of 
said William and his heirs, with a moiety of the messuage etc., at a yearly 
rent of one pair of white gloves at midsummer and 9^. at the same term, and 
9^. at martinmas to the chief lord, in consideration of half a mark, with war- 
rant. Witnesses : Hugh de Hola, Robert de Trohford, Gilbert de Neuton, 
William le Brun, Walter de Piketon, John de Sutton, Elyas the chaplain. 
Undated. Seal gone. 

cliii. [1335] 

Robert son of Robert de Neuton to John de Snelowe, citizen of Chester. 
Indenture of grant of 7 selions of land in the field of Chester, 5 between 
lands of St. Werburgh's abbey and William de Shauynton broadways, and 
between lands of said abbey longways, and two between lands of said abbey 
broadways, and longways between lands of said abbey and Flokesbrok, to 
hold of grantor and his heirs for 24 years at a yearly rent of one rose at mid- 
summer, afterwards at a yearly rent of 100^, with warrant. Witnesses : 
Richard Erneys, Warin le Blound, Hugh de Brichull, John Dunfoull, John 
de Brichull, Henry the clerk. Dated Chester, thursday after michaelmas 
9 Edward III. (1335). Seal, a fleur de lys. 

cliv. [circa 1335] 
John de Snelowe to Robert de Neuton. Indenture demising to farm 7 
selions of land in the field of Chester, which he had by grant of said Robert, 
to hold of grantor and his heirs to Robert his wife and children for 24 years 
from 12 October 9 Edward III. (1 335) at a yearly rent of 13X. 4^., with war- 
rant. Witnesses : Richard Erneys, William de Shauynton, Hugh de Brichull, 
Warin le Blound, Richard Reymund, Henry the clerk. Undated. Seal. 

clv. [1345] 

Robert de Neuton to Robert ' my son ' and Isabel his wife, daughter of 
Richard son of Thomas de Salghton. Indenture of grant of a grange and 
the third part of an orchard and curtilage, with 13J selions of land in Neuton 
by Chester, to hold to Robert the son and Isabel and the heirs of their 
bodies of grantor and his heirs by the service of one rose, doing the services 



due to the chief lords, with warrant. Witnesses : James de Coghull, Roger 
his son, William Toront, John de Wyruyn, William de Picton, John his 
brother, Richard Corbyn of Sutton. Dated Neuton, friday the morrow of 
St. Tyburtius and St. Valerianus M., 19 Edward III. (1345). Seal. 

clvi. [1345] 

Robert de Neuton to Robert son of William de Picton. Grant of all his 
lands in Neuton by Chester, with warrant. Witnesses : James de Coghull, 
Roger his son, William Toront, John de Wyruyn, William de Picton, John 
his brother, Richard Corbyn of Sutton. Dated Neuton, monday after 
St. Tyburtius and St. Valerianus M., 19 Edward III. (1345). Seal. 

clvii. [1345] 

Robert son of William de Picton to Robert de Neuton. Grant indented 
of all the lands in Neuton by Chester which he had of the feoffment of 
grantee in his charter contained, to hold for life of the chief lords, remainder 
to Robert son of said Robert de Neuton and his heirs by Isabel his wife, 
daughter of Richard son of Thomas de Salghton, remainder to the right heirs 
of said Robert de Neuton. Witnesses : James de Coghull, Roger his son, 
William Toront, John de Wyruyn, William de Picton, John his brother, 
Richard Corbyn of Sutton. Dated Neuton, monday St. Mark Ev. 19 
Edward III. (1345). Seal. 

CLVIII. [1352] 

Robert de Neuton to William son of William son of Nichole de Salgh- 
ton. Grant of all his messuages, lands, etc., in Neuton by Vpton, with 
warrant. Witnesses : William de Golburne, Edmund de Coton, Roger son 
of Roger de Coghull, Philip de Prestelond, William Toront. Dated Neuton, 
Wednesday St. Peter in cathedra, 26 Edward III. (1352). Seal gone. 

clix. 1398. 

Robert son of Robert de Newton and William Brown of Newton. In- 
denture whereby said Robert to farm lets to William and his wife, their heirs 
and assigns, one messuage two bovates and two selions of land in the town 
and territory of Newton, for 10 years from martinmas 1398, at a yearly rent of 
42/., with warrant. Witnesses : Richard de Manlegh, John le Venables of 
Sutton, Randle de Cotgreue, John le Massy of Kelshale, Robert de Prestlond. 
Dated Newton, the vigil of all saints, 1398. Seal. 


CLX. [124O— I ] 

Secilia daughter of Adam de Donam and William son of Richard de 
Troghforde. Final concord made 25 Henry III. in the county court of 
Chester, before John Estraneus justice of Chester, Roger de Borewardeleye 
constable of Chester castle, Roger de Mohaut steward of Chester, Warin de 
Vernon, William de Vernon, Hamon de Mascy, William de Malpas, Walkelin 
de Ardern, etc. ; whereby Secilia quitclaimed to William all land she had or 
might have of her inheritance in the town and territory of Donam, whereof 
she was impleaded by him; and said William his heirs and assigns shall do ser- 



vice to sir John Fitzalan : consideration one mark. Witnesses : sir Randle de 
Thornton, Richard de Kingesl[egh], Richard le Brun, Adam de Hellisbi, John 
de Hauekistan, Hugh de Hole, Nicholas serjeant of Troghford, Thomas the 
clerk writer hereof. Seal, s' sisellie fil' ade. 

CLXI. [l26o-8o] 

William called the Reeve of Donam to William son of Richard le Brwne, 
for his homage and service. Grant of 9 J arable lands (Jandas terre) in Donam, 
namely one long one by the Huttegrewe, one called the Walleslond, half a one 
called Woaslond, a butt called the Cubutte in Wycharishulle, half a lond 
which is pikealland extending to the Brokefeld, one by Barwelydeyate, one by 
the cross, and one headland next land of Roger de Barwe, the moiety of one 
in Mutforlong, that next the land of John son of Lawrence, the moiety of one in 
Cullegrewe, the costa (bank ?) towards the Sondeway, half a one in a croft by 
the land of Roger de Barwe, half a one in the Brodelondes next the land of 
Randle Wade, half a one in the Quitefeld next the land of Ralph son of 
Hugh, half a one by the Londing, a great butt in Grenewaygrewis, with all 
buildings lying in the town of Donam between land of Hugh son of Philip 
lord of Apisfort and of Roger de Parva Barwe, and a barn between land of 
said Roger and of Robert and Adam sons of Adam son of Robert, to hold of 
grantor and his heirs, at a yearly rent of %d. to Richard son of sir John 
Fitzalan for all service saving that pertaining to the lord's court, namely suit 
{sequelarri) of court of the said town of Donam, with warrant. Witnesses : 
Peter le Roter lord of Thorneton, Robert lord of TrofFort, Robert de 
Mottrom, Richard le Roter of Thorneton, Robert de Apisfort, Robert the 
clerk of Frodesham. Undated. Seal, s' will'i [fil' ?] r' d' donu'. 

clxii. [After 1300 ?] 

John de Pilkinton and Agnes daughter of Richard de Hole his wife to> 
William son of Richard le Brun of Stony Donam. Grant of the third part 
of a curtilage in Stony Donam, late of Richard son of Richard de Hole, and 
i\ selions of arable land there, one in Muclefurlong between land of 
Alexander son of Randle and of Randle son of Alexander, half a selion 
between land of Thomas son of Richard de Aston and of John the carpenter, 
half a head selion upon the Wohutlond late of Richard son of Richard de 
Hole, and half a selion between land of William le Brun and of John son of 
Hugh, with warrant. Witnesses : Peter de Thornton, William de Hellesby, 
Robert le Brun of Stapelford, Robert de Elton, Richard le Brun de TrofFord, 
John de Hole. Undated. Two seals, one small shield shaped ; the other 
s' angnetis fil' ric, but indistinct. 

clxiii. [After 1 300 ?] 

Alan son of Randle de Donham to William son of Richard le Bruyn of 
Donham his heirs and assigns. Grant of a messuage and 4J selions of land 
with the meadow thereto pertaining in Donham, whereof one selion called 
the Mypartilond lies in the Brocfeld between land of John the carpenter and 
John son of William, another abuts upon the heath, one lies upon Mukel- 
furlong between land of William le Bruyn and Adam son of Filota, half a 
selion lies upon Hongerhull, half a selion at the Haspenegrene, half a selion 



upon Grathannesfeld, a piece of land called a ' ferthing ' in the croft abutting 
upon the said messuage, and one called half a i ferthing ' by land of William 
le Bruyn in the Brocfeld, with warrant, in consideration of 5/. Witnesses : 
John de Legh, Peter de Thornton, Robert le Bruyn of Stapilford, Henry 
Doun, William de Hellisby, Richard le Bruyn of TrofFord, William the clerk. 
Undated. Seal, s' alani : fil' ranulfi. 


Robert son of Richard de Hapisford and Alice his wife to William son ot 
Richard le Bruyn of Donham his heirs and assigns. Grant of all their lands 
and tenements in Donham, with warrant : consideration 4.6*. Witnesses : 
William de Venablis, Richard le Roter, William de TrofFord, Henry Doun, 
William de Hellesby, John son of Walter de Frodesham, Robert de Elton, 
Robert de Manlegh, William the clerk. Undated. Both seals gone. 

clxv. 1324 

Agnes late the wife of John de Pilkynton to William le Brun of Donham 
and Alice his wife. Grant of 1} selions with her share of Manmeduwe and 
Louelake meduwe in Donham, whereof one selion lies upon the rake called the 
Sondiwey, half a selion abuts upon the Dichelewes, and a quarter of a selion 
lies upon Hongrel, to hold to William and Alice and the heirs of their bodies, 
remainder to the right heirs of said William, with warrant. Witnesses : Peter 
de Thorinton, Roger le Brun of Stapelford, Robert son of Thomas de Elton, 
Richard Doun of Crouton, Peter de Wetenale clerk. Dated Chester, 
St. Gregory's day, 1324. Seal gone. 

clxvi. [1399] 

David le Bruyn of Stony Dunham to Robert Bythewall of the same and 
Beatrice his wife and the children of their bodies. Grant to farm indented 
of all his lands and tenements in Stony Dunham by Happesford for term of 
their lives, at a yearly rent of Js., with warrant. Witnesses : Richard de 
Manley, William le Venables of TrofFord, Richard le Boore, William de 
Froddesham, John de Lee. Dated Stony Dunham, St. Philip and St. James* 
day 22 Richard II. (1399). Seal. 


There are several villages of this name, Mickle TrafFord, Wimbolds Traf- 
ford and Bridge TrafFord, lying between Hoole and Dunham on the Hill. 
The last was the seat of a family named Troghford or TrafFord (not to be 
confused with the Lancashire TrafFords), for whom see Edgerley and Dunham. 

clxvii. [ 1 261-7] 
John de Flury lord of ClafFord to Hugh de Flury his son. Grant in- 
dented of all his land in the vill of TrofFord which he had in frank marriage 
with Joan his wife, to hold of grantor, his heirs and assigns, to said Hugh and 
his heirs by his now wife, at a yearly rent of one pair of white gloves value id, 
at midsummer, remainder to his next brother, with warrant. Witnesses : sir 
Roger Dunuile, sir Patrick de Haselwal knights, William de Cyfton (?), Hugh 
de Hole, William de Goldburn, Richard the clerk mayor of Chester, Richard 


Payn, Adam Godewayt. Undated. Seal, an engraved gem, with lion, tied 
with silk. 

clxviii. [Before 1289] 

Giles son and heir of John de Flury to William de Tytneleye. Grant of 
all the land which said John the father had, in the town of Trochford or with- 
out, in frank marriage with Joan grantor's mother, to hold of grantor and his 
heirs at the yearly rent of one rose at midsummer, with warrant. Witnesses : 
Robert de Hoxleye, Hugh de Hatton, John de Mersinton, Hugh de Puleford, 
William de Golburne, Thomas de Aldelime, Richard de Pyuelesdune, Henry 
de Schauinton, Richard de Hatton. Undated. Fragment of seal. 

Titley is in the extreme south of Cheshire, beyond Audlem, and near 
Shavington in Shropshire. 

clxix. (Before 1289] 

Giles son and heir of John de Flury to William de Tyttelegh. Grant 
for his service of all the land which grantor's said father had in frank marriage 
with Joan his mother within the town of Trochford and without, to hold of 
grantor and his heirs at a yearly rent of one rose at midsummer, and three 
halfpence or one pair of spurs to the chief lords, with warrant. Witnesses : 
Robert de Hoxleye, Hugh de Hatton, John de Mersinton, Hugh de Pulford, 
William de Golborne, Thomas de Aldelime, Richard de Pimeldone, Henry de 
Schaynton. Undated. Seal wrapped. 

clxx. [circa 1320] 

Sir Thomas de Tytneleye and Hugh son of Hugh de Sutton. Indenture 
of lease of . . . mes' and 4 bovates of land with meadow adjoining in Mickle 
Trofforde for 20 years beginning at michaelmas 14 Edward II. (1320) at a 
yearly rent of 2 marks to sir Thomas his heirs and assigns, and the services 
due to the chief lords ; and whenever sir Thomas or his heirs come thither 
the said Hugh shall find housing, firing, litter, hay ... for 6 horses (half a 
strike daily for each), with covenant for forfeiture upon default, and warrant 
clause. Witnesses : sir Robert de Holondo, justice of Chester, William de 
Mobberlegh, sheriff, John de Legh, Matthew de Hulgreue, William de 
[Coton ?], clerk. Undated. Seal with arms : a chief, sigillvm secreti. 



Thomas de Caurthin to Hugh his son for his homage and service. Grant 
of all his share (viz. one half) of the town of Tillistan with liberties etc., 
saving to grantor three half lands {land') therein, in the field called Polfurlong 
between land late of William de Strete on either side, with the patronage of a 
moiety of the church, to hold of grantor etc., to Hugh his heirs and assigns, 
with liberties in mills, pleas, reliefs, etc., at a yearly rent of one pair of white 
gloves and id. at midsummer, with warrant. Witnesses : Robert de Bulkileg', 
Robert de Cholmundeleg', Thomas de Herthul, William de Brex', Hugh de 
Bikertun, David de Egertun, Philip de Sokeleche, Henry de Brueria, Richard 
son of Thomas de Kaurthin, David and Thomas his brothers, David son of 
Peter de Tillistan, Hugh the miller. Undated. (No seal.) 




William son of Thomas de Caworthin to Hugh de Caworthin his brother, 
his heirs and assigns. Quitclaim of all lands lordship etc., within the town 
of Tillistan or without, which Thomas his father granted to said Hugh by 
charter, saving a tenement there which said Hugh in consideration hereof has 
granted and quitclaimed to said William and his heirs, viz. his share of a 
croft called Polfurlong with three messuages thereto belonging, one late of 
Hugh de Graftun, another of Kenewrek the miller, the third of Hova son of 
Wronu, with a moiety of the old mill and one-fourth of the middle mill, hous- 
bold, haybold of timber and earth in the waste of Tillistan outside the hedges, 
and quittance of pannage in the wood for the inhabitants thereof. Witnesses : 
Robert le Brun of Stapelford, William de Brexis, Hugh de Bikertun, Patrick 
de Bartun, Richard de Caworthin, Philip his brother, David de Caworthin, 
David son of Peter de Tillistan. Undated. (No seal.) 


William son of Thomas de Caworthin to Hugh de Caworthin his brother, 
his heirs and assigns. Grant and quitclaim of a seylion in the town field of Tilli- 
stan called Bradelond with the patronage of a moiety of the church, to hold of 
the chief lords of the town by the same service as said Hugh holds his other 
land therein, with warrant, in consideration of the grant of a croft in said 
town called Polfurlong with half the old mill and a quarter of the middle 
mill to said William and his heirs. Witnesses : Robert le Brun of Stapleford, 
William de Brex', Hugh de Bikertun, Patrick de Bartun, Richard de Caworthin, 
Philip his brother, David de Caworthin, David son of Peter de Tillistan. 
Undated. Seal, with device of a cross formy fitchy (not upon a shield), 
s' * wii/ * de * kavr'. 


Hugh son of Thomas de Cawyrthyn to Thomas his son. Grant of the 
land which David son of Ythenard formerly held of the said Hugh in the town 
of Tilstan, with the cottages upon the said land, at a rent of one pair of white 
gloves and one penny. Witnesses : Robert le Brun, William de Brex' and 
Robert his son, Patrick de Barton, Richard de Cawyrthyn and Philip and 
David and Thomas his brothers, Philip son of David son of Peter de Tilstan, 
Hugh the miller of Tilstan, Hugh the clerk. Undated. Seal of a griffon. 



Thomas son of Hugh de Clutton to Thomas his son. Grant of the land 
and tenement which David son of Hugh the miller formerly held of him in 
Tylston, with quittance of pannage and stallage for him and his tenants, hous- 
bolt heybolt and fire bote (Jbcali) in the groves of Tylston, as freely as grantor's 
father gave it by charter, to hold of the chief lords, the reversion to grantor 
if said Thomas die without lawful heirs, with warrant. 4 Witnesses : David de 
Barton, William de Mulneton, Richard de Caurthyn, Robert clerk of Codin- 
ton, Thomas son of Richard de Caurthyn, Hugh the clerk. Undated. Seal. 


CLXXVI. [1465] 

Thomas Smyth parson of Tilston and Randle de Caurthyn to John le 
Rede. Grant of a messuage and lands adjacent, which they had by feoffment 
of David son of Thomas le Rede in Over Caurthyn, with warrant. Witnesses : 
John Leche, . . . . de Caurthyn, Hugh de Wauerton, John Brid, William 
Brid. Dated Over Caurthyn, thursday after St. Thomas M. 5 Edward IV. 
(1465). One seal with bird : the other gone. 


CLXXVII. [1291] 

Reynold de Grey to Walter de Thorperlegh clerk, for his service. Grant 
of 10 acres of land in the territory of Thorperlegh, in a place called the 
Netherwode which grantor formerly held imparked, between land of Nicholas 
the clerk and of Robert the cook, to hold of grantor and his heirs, with liberty 
to assart cultivate etc., at a yearly rent of 8j. \d., with warrant. Witnesses : 
sir Ralph de Vernun, sir Hamon de Mascy, sir Richard de Mascy knights, 
William de Preers sheriff of Cheshire, William de Bunnebury, Robert le 
Grosvenur, Matthew de Alpram, Nicholas the clerk. Dated Chester, Saturday 
after the translation of St. Thomas M. 19 E[dward I.] (1291). Seal, with 
shield : arms indistinct. Finely engrossed. 

clxxvii 1. [1304] 

William son of Walter de Torporlegh to Henry son ot Matthew de 
Hulgreve. Grant of ten acres of land in Torporlegh in a piece of land called 
the Netherwode, at a yearly rent of Ss. \d. to be paid to Reynold de Grey. 
Witnesses : William Trussel justice of Chester, Robert de Brescy sheriff, 
Hugh de Calvilegh, Roger de Spurstow and William of the same, Richard 
Doun, Richard Darnal of Torporlegh. Dated at Torporlegh, monday before 
St. Barnabas, 32 Edw. I. (1304). Seal gone. 


CLXXIX. [1325] 

Joan late wife of Robert de Godelegh, son of Henry de Godelegh, in 
her widowhood, to sir William de Baggelegh knight and his heirs. Quit- 
claim of all lands and tenements, and of all places which pertain to the town 
of Godelegh ; also of 10/. yearly rent for which he was bound to her. 
Witnesses : Richard del Brom, William de Tatton, Richard de Tatton, 
Thomas de Baggelegh, Richard de Rigewaye, William son of Roger de 
Bredburi. Dated Baggelegh, monday after St. Peter ad vinculo, 19 Edward II. 
(1325). Seal. 

CLXXX. [1408] 

Richard de Mascy of Sale. Inquisition post mortem taken at Macclesfeld 
on monday after the exaltation of holy cross 9 Henry IV., finding that he 
died seised of no lands in co. Chester, and held nothing of the earl or any 
other, for that Roger son of Robert de Mascy, long before his death, entered 
the lands which were of the said Richard in Godley, claiming them as his 
inheritance ; which lands are held of John Lovell knight, as of his manor of 



Tyngetwesull, by knight service, yearly value 10/. Richard died on Sunday 
before St. James Ap. last : Ellen, Joan and Margaret are his daughters and 
heirs, Joan aged 24, Ellen 30, Margaret 20. See Ches. Inq. 9 Hen. IV. No. 16. 

CLXXXI. [i^I 9] 

Robert de Dauenporte of Bromall to Robert Starlyng of Chedle and 
Alena his wife, their heirs and assigns. Quitclaim of a moiety of the lands 
and tenements which were late of Robert le Massy father of Alena in Chedle, 
with warrant, provided that such warrant shall not bind Daueneporte or his 
heirs upon voucher or in action of warantia carte, but only bar him and his 
heirs from the said lands. Dated Sunday after St. Mary Magdalen 7 Henry V. 
(14.19). Seal : a sheaf. 


Worfleston, Shavington, Leighton and Buerton, to which the next four 
charters refer, are in the southern part of the county, near Nantwich and 
Bridgemere (see Nos. cxlv., cxlvi.). Lawton is not far distant. Mollington 
is near Chester ; Tattenhall on the other side, towards Tarporley ; Manley 
and Mouldsworth to the north-east, in the direction of Stony Dunham. 
There is nothing ostensible to account for the presence of these deeds in the 

clxxxii. [circa 1260?] 

Hugh de Langeford (by assent of Maud de Worfleston his wife) to Hugh 
de Hunkelawe and his heirs. Grant, for his homage and service, of two bovates 
of land in Worfleston which Robert de Lockendale held, to hold of grantor 
and his heirs at a yearly rent of \s. and one pig for all save foreign service, 
with warrant. Witnesses : sir William the chaplain of Wich, sir Robert de 
Praeris, sir Michael {sic) de Langeford, Peter de StapelT, William de Wista- 
neston, Philip the clerk, Robert de Bebinton, Richard de Berdirton, John de 
Langeford, Henry de Mere, ' and moreover all my court of Worfleston, and 
others.' Undated. Seal gone. 

The lady of Worleston's first husband was a Coudray, and had interests in 
Newton near Chester. Compare No. cxcv. 

clxxxiii. [13 10] 

Thomas son of Peter de Buyrton to Joan daughter of Henry de Stapelegh. 
Grant of a bovate of land in Schauyngton which grantor had of his said 
father's gift, with warrant. Witnesses : William de Praers, William Chany, 
William de Wystaneston, Richard de Rop, Hamon de Wystaneston, Richard 
de Bosco, Richard the clerk. Dated Schauyngton, friday before all saints 
4 Edward II. (13 10). Seal gone. 

clxxxiv. 1 3 1 9 

Thomas son of Thomas del Broc to Thomas his son and Katherine 
daughter of Hugh de Erdeswyk. Grant of all 4 land, buildings, rents, etc., of 
the gift of his father in the town of Leghton, as by metes and bounds, to 
hold to Thomas and Katherine and the heirs of their bodies, remainder to 
grantor and his right heirs, with warrant. Witnesses : William de Mobbur- 
legh sheriff of Cheshire, Thomas de Erdeswyk, Richard de Munschull, Richard 


del Broc, Randle de Leghton. Dated Leghton, Sunday after the nativity of 
St. John Bapt. 13 19. Seal gone. 

This charter makes havoc of Mr. Helsby's attempts at the pedigree of 
Brooke of Leighton. See Ormerod, iii. 454. 

clxxxv. 1373 

Elizabeth late the wife of Adam de Buyrton, in her widowhood, to Richard 
del Hogh and Joan his wife. Grant of all her lands which she had at the 
date hereof in the town of Buyrton, and which formerly were of Nichole 
daughter of Philip de Wouere {sic), with warrant. Witnesses : Lawrence de 
Dutton knight sheriff of Cheshire, William de Praers, Robert de Fouleshurst, 
Randle de Leghe, William del Hogh. Dated Buyrton, sunday after St. James 
Ap. 1373. Seal : a Catherine wheel. 

This is the southern Buerton, near Audlem, not near Aldford. Ormerod 
erroneously reads * Nicholas son of Philip' (iii. 473). 


Roger son of Roger de Moldeword to Stephen son of Richard of the mill. 
Grant in frank marriage with Alice his daughter of all the land which grantor 
held of Roger de Manlegh and his heirs in ' the same town,' to hold of grantor 
and his heirs to Stephen and Alice and their heirs of the body of Alice, with 
all easements to the said town of Manlegh belonging, hosebote and haybote 
in the wood of Manlegh, and quittance of pannage, at a yearly rent of id., 
remainder to grantor and his heirs. Warrant of said land and rights of way. 
Witnesses : Roger son of Ralph de Kelsal, Adam procurator of Teruen, Hugh 
son of Adam of Great Barewe, William son of Robert de Ascheton, Richard 
son of Adam de Kelsal, William de Barewe, clerk. Undated. Seal gone. 

Compare No. cxcii. below. Great Mouldsworth and Manley are adjoin- 
ing townships. 

clxxxvii. [1297 ? or 1 35 1 ?] 

Sibil formerly wife of John de Thurlewode to Thomas her brother. 
(Copy) deed of gift of all her goods, etc., for $s. paid. Dated monday before 
the nativity of St. John Bapt. at Lautun, 2 5 Edward. 

clxxxviii. [1361] 

Sir John Tuchet knight, lord of Tatenale, and Philip son of William 
Filkyn. Indenture witnessing that the said John has given and granted to 
the said Philip and the heirs of his body six acres of land, whereof five 
acres lie in Russhaleheye and one acre in the Sonderuddyng in the town 
of Tatenale, at a rent of eighteen pence. For this grant the said Philip has 
given and granted to the said John and to his heirs and assigns, in exchange, 
six acres of land and meadow lying upon Russhalesfeld, Brokforlong, Holmes 
Hull, Mydelforlong, Crowenest, Byrches, Sydenale, Sortecroft and Bruches in 
the said town of Tatenale. Witnesses : Henry de Buyston (sic), David de 
Eggerton, John de Belegreve, Robert Godemon. Dated at Tatenale, Thursday 
after St. Andrew 35 Edw. III. (1361). Seal with arms — an ermine shield 
with a cheveron — s'iohannis . . . het. 



clxxxix. 1 3 69 

Robert bishop ot Coventry and Lichfield to the deans of Middlewich, 
Wich Malbank and Newcastle. Mandate to admonish in every church of 
their deaneries, wherein they shall be required so to do on behalf of Beatrice 
wife of William called de Lauton Maresshall, upon three Sundays or feast days, 
all who are detaining or concealing charters letters and muniments concerning 
the right and inheritance of said Beatrice in the town and territory of Lauton, 
or fabricating charters indentures instruments or muniments to the detriment 
of her right, (provided their names be unknown to said William and Beatrice) 
to disclose the same and cease trom such fabrication within 1 5 days, upon 
pain of excommunication. Dated Heywode 3 id. julii 1369. Seal gone. 

See the Plea Roll of 51 Edw. III. m. 16. 

cxc. [1397] 

Randle de Merbury of Overwalton v. Geoffrey Huchunsone de Werburton. 
Writ, tested at Chester 10 April 20 [Richard II.] by Thomas Earl Marshal and 
of Notyngham justice of Chester, directing an inquisition to be taken upon 
the plaint of said Randle that he has been disseised by the defendant of his 
common of pasture and of fishery pertaining to 3 messuages one carucate and 
1 5 acres of land and 4 acres of meadow in Netherwalton, whereof he recovered 
seisin by judgment of the court of Chester. Endorsed with the inquisition 
thereupon taken before Robert de Legh knight sheriff of Cheshire, and Peter 
de Whytelegh coroner of the hundred of Buclowe, by Robert de Mascy of 
Preston, John son of William de Tatton, Richard le Cokker, Thomas de Sale, 
Henry de Moston, William de Kenworthey, Thomas Tochet, Hugh Scot, 
William de Lyueresegge, Matthew de Legh, Thomas Starky of Stretton and 
Hamon de Asshelegh, who find that defendant did not disseise plaintiff as 

cxci. [1406] 

William Venables of Kynderton and John Doune of Utkynton to John 
son of William Chayne knight (militis) of the county of Caumbrug' and 
Nicholas Parys. Grant of all their lands, rents and services in the town of 
Molynton Terrent, co. Cheshire, formerly of William Torront, with warrant. 
Witnesses : John de Knyghteley lieutenant of Cheshire, John de Pulle knight, 
Thomas del Hogh, Hamon Mascy of Podynton, John de Capenhurst. Dated 
Molynton Torront, St. Scolastica V. 7 Henry IV. (1406). Seal. 

cxcn. [1530] 

William Manley of Manley esquire to Richard Sneyde esquire. Grant 
for 50 marks of two messuages with appurtenances in Great Mold worth co. 
Chester, and all the lands, moors, woods, marshes, etc., to the same belonging, 
in the several tenures of Roger Sarrott, Thomas Sarrott and Thomas Both, 
with warrant ; appointing William Molyneux and William Sarrott attorneys 
to deliver seisin. Dated 24 april 22 Henry VIII. (1530). (S dt ) W. M. 
Seal. w. Compare No. clxxxvi. above. 

cxciii. [1589] 

Thomas Tettnall of the Inner Temple near London gentleman to John 
Mere of Mere co. Chester esquire. Counterpart of a deed, reciting a grant 


in fee farm by the crown to William and Thomas Kerkham of Greisem 
gentlemen, by patent of 15 June 29 Eliz., of all lands concealed, encroached, 
or enclosed upon the queen's wastes or commons in co. Chester, and a bargain 
and sale thereof by them to said Thomas, dated 23 May 30 Eliz. ; and 
assigning over certain parcels thereof, viz. those called the intacks upon Rud- 
heath, Winkell, Wartons, Boeth, Overs, Dauenham, Newton, Randmoer, 
Haughton, Hawksmoer, Vtkinton, Clotton, Helsbie, Manley, Norley, Ashe- 
ton, Aston, Aughton, Moldsworth, Kingsley, Doddon, Kelshew, Tarvyn, 
Shotwycke, Caponhurst, Willesson, Littell Coddington, Budworth, Hardinge, 
Warlsson, Chomson, Stoke, Moseley, Wardell, Wymbesley, Croton, Plomley, 
Lostocke, Howse, Pevers, Tableys, Marpowle, Maxfild, Nantwych, Pott, 
Disley, Holford, Wettnall, Sale, Crossestrete, Fradsham and Eaton, and lands 
belonging to the chantries and chapels of Bartamley, Haslington, Nantwych, 
Mydleswych, Newton, Prestbery, Chederycke, Maxfild, Pott, or to superstitious 
uses, subject to the fee farm rent. Dated 13 august 31 Elizabeth (1589). 
(S d> ) John Mere. Seal, with an antique gem. 

cxciv. [16 1 7] 

John Eaton gentleman. Inquisition post mortem taken at Middlewich 
3 Oct. [15 and] 5 1 James before Hugh Maynwaring esq. deputy escheator, by 
virtue of a writ of mandamus, rinding that said John was seised of . . . lands 
in Great Budworth co. Chester, 7 messuages, one cottage and lands in 
Comberbach, and a messuage and land in Over Walton, and reciting an 
indenture dated 1 Sept. 3 James I. between said John and George Rutter of 
Kingesley gentleman, whereby in consideration of a marriage to be had be- 
tween Richard, his son and heir apparent, and Elizabeth Rutter, one ot the 
daughters of said George, and of 140/. (which marriage was solemnized), 
said John covenanted to enfeoff Thomas Rutter of Clotton and John Nuttall 
of Cattenhall gentlemen, to uses, which he afterwards did : that the lands in 
Budworth and Comberbach are held in chief by the service of the fortieth 
part of a knight's fee and a rent of js. lid., value . 3/. 1 is. iod., those in 
Over Walton of John Danyell, service unknown, value Ss. Sd. ; and that Richard 
Percyvall has taken the profits until now ; that said John died 4 July . . 
James I., and John son of said Richard Eaton is his grandson and heir, and 

aged 4 years and 27 days ; and that Jane wife of said John is yet 

living. (Defective.) See Cheshire Inq. 15 James I. No. 4. 


Randle de Wirale to Benedict de Coudray and his heirs. Confirmation 
of the grant made by Randle de Coudray, father of Randle, to Richard 
de Coudray and his heirs of one bovate of land in the town of Hulm which 
said Benedict holds ; and further grant of that bovate in the same town which 

William Witnesses : William de Hippestan, 

William de Chetelton, Randle de Langesdon, Richard de Bradezah, Henry de 
Forde, Henry de Tetisworth, Adam de Ruston, Randle de Hulm, Walter 
Coudray, Hugh the chaplain. Undated. Seal gone. (Defective.) 

This charter is attached to several Allostock deeds ; but the place to which 
it refers would appear to be in Staffordshire. Compare the Dieulacresse 



charter, No. cviii. The first husband of Maud de Worpleston of 1 3 1 8, No. 
clxxxii., was a Coudray. 

cxcvi. [1291 ?] 

Henry de Tildesley to Adam his son and his heirs. Grant [and attornment 
of Henry the mason {cementarius)\ formerly grantor's tenant, and the service of 
him and his heirs, and a [rent of 1 3^. contained] in a feoffment (herein re- 
cited) made by grantor to Henry le Mascun of formerly held 

of him [by Adam Clerk and William] his son, bounded by a dyke on the 

south in the town of Tildesley at the rent aforesaid, witnessed 

by William de Adhirton, Richard de Urmeston, Richard de Bra 

[Gili]brond. Witnesses : Alan le Norrays, Gilbert de Halsal, Robert de 

Eccleston, Ni master Richard de Redinalis. Dated Leythe 

church, sunday Bp and M. . . 91. Seal gone. 

Defective. Attached is the fragment of a translation, from which the 
words in square brackets are supplied. 

Tyldesley is near Leigh (still pronounced Leith) co. Lancaster. 

cxcvu. [1345] 

Robert de Stokport, son of Nicholas de Eton knight, to John son of John de 
Dauenport knight, his heirs and assigns. Grant of the reversions of the lands, 
tenements and rents of neifs with their suits and all that goes with them and 
of free tenants in Lopinthorp and Swafeld co. Lincoln, which master William 
de Eton ' my uncle ' holds for life of the demise of Nicholas de Eton ' my 
grandfather ', to hold of the chief lord, with warrant. Witnesses : Richard 
de Swafeld, John Hyngham, Munde de Corby, Roger Bryan, Thomas the 
chaplain. Dated Lopinthorp, Wednesday before St. Gregory P. 19 Edward III. 
(1345). (No seal.) 

Sir Nicholas de Eton the younger married the heiress of Stockport (Orme- 
rod, iii. 795). 

cxcviii. [1496] 

Jasper Kynaston (son of Peter Kynaston) to Ralph Brereton (brother ot 
Randle Brereton of Malpas esquire) and Richard Lye of Lye. Grant of all 
his lands etc. in the towns and fields of Orton Foren and Penley within the 
lordship of Maillors co. Flint, and of Hampton is wode co. Salop, with 
warrant. Witnesses : Richard Hanmer esquire, Edward Hanmer of Halton,, 
GrurEth Hanmer of Fennes, John Hanmer of Bettisfeld, Randle ap Edo. 
Dated Orton Foren, 7 december 12 Henry VII. (1496). Seal gone. 

cxcix. [1366] 

William cardinal priest of St. Laurence in Lucina to Adam dil Smalwod 
his wife and children. Licence to choose a confessor. Dated 6 id. sept. 
4 Urban V. Seal gone. 

For cardinal Guillermus or Willelmus Bragose see Ciaconius, Hierarchia 
Catbolica (Rome, 1667),. ii. 543. Smallwood is in Cheshire, near Moreton, 
Alsager and Lawton. 


cc. 1474 

The chamberlain warden and procurator ol the hospital of holy trinity 
and St. Thomas the martyr in the city of Rome to Thomas Waltton Alice 
his wife and their children. Indulgence (by authority of pope Sixtus IV., 
declared 5 kal.julii 1474). Dated London, 10 december 1474. Endorsed 
with absolution. Seal gone. 

cci. 1487 

Brother George Sutton knight and master of Burton St. Lazarus of Jeru- 
salem in England. General declaration of indulgence to benefactors, dated 
Burton, 5 february i486. Absolution endorsed. Fragments of a seal. 





THE years have dealt it cruel blows and the restorer has 
played with it at his fantastic will, but in spite of neglect 
and hard treatment the tomb of Sir John Montagu is still one 
of the most interesting and important of the monuments in 
Salisbury Cathedral. 

Once ablaze with gold and colour this stately memorial 
stood for close on four centuries in the Lady Chapel, but 
during the disastrous period when the cathedral was handed 
over to the tender mercies of Wyatt it was moved to its present 
position in the nave, on the stone bench under the second arch 
east of the north door of the church. 

It consists of the effigy of a harnessed knight on a tomb of 
decorated work, the surface of which is divided into six panels 
enclosing shields and separated from one another by canopied 
niches which have long lost any figures they may once have 
contained. The present back or north side of the tomb does 
not belong to it. 

It stood formerly close against a north wall, as appears 
from the fact that the left side of the effigy is less carefully 
wrought than the rest of the memorial. The original back of 
the tomb being either of uncarved stone, or more probably the 
wall of the chapel itself, it commended itself to the judgment 
of the wiseacres of that day that a new one should be provided 
when the tomb is so placed as to be visible from all points. 

The ingenious Mr. Wyatt triumphantly accomplished this 
architectural feat by causing three of the sculptured Purbeck 
marble panels of the Beauchamp chapel, recently demolished by 
his orders, to be hacked into the size and shape required to fit 
the space. 

The impious removal of this tomb was only one of the 
many outrages that Wyatt perpetrated at Salisbury. But the 
absurd and clumsy piece of patchwork which was the outcome 
of it has at least this value, that it proves the armorial ornament 
of the monument to have been confined to the effigy and the 
two ends and south side of the base on which it rests. 


Sir John Montagu, whose resting-place was thus honoured 
by his own generation and violated with the connivance of the 
modern guardians of his remains, was the second son of William, 
first Earl of Salisbury of the 1337 creation, and Katherine 
Graunson. While still a youth under age he served in the 
retinue of his brother Earl William throughout the Norman 
expedition of 1346, and was present at Crecy and at the seige or 
Calais. Knighted before Whitsuntide, 1347, he returned to 
England with the king in the autumn of that year, and in two 
years more took to wife Margaret Monthermer. He was 
summoned to parliament, not in her barony, but by his own 
name, and sat as a peer till his death in February, 1390. 

His effigy represents him in complete armour. His head 
covered by a bascinet rests on a great crowned helm sur- 
mounted by the griffon's head and wings, which form the crest 
of his house. On crown and crest a very little dark blue 
colouring remains, but this is no doubt only the ground for 
the original red and silver of these ornaments. The mantle is 
quite short, reaching only to the lower edge of the helm, not 
disposed in folds, but lying smoothly with edges slightly jagged, 
and it appears to have been painted red. Of his sword, which 
hung from a richly jewelled belt, only the hilt remains with 
the end of the sword-belt wrapped about it. 

The knight's figure was as completely painted and gilt as 
the rest of the monument and what little of this decoration 
survives shows plainly that the surcoat was golden and charged 
with the green eagle of Monthermer. 

The chief interest however of the monument for the 
student of mediaeval armory lies in the series of armorial shields 
on the tomb itself, which with one exception are all carved in 
low relief and painted, and afford important examples of late 
fourteenth century methods of marking cadency. 

That at the head or western end of the tomb displays a 
quartered coat, the arms of the lordship of Man quarterly with 
the well known Montagu armorials, silver a fess gules indented 
of three fusils, and not as is more usual the Montagu fusils 
quartering the legs of Man. This is of course the escutcheon 
of the head of the house, William the second earl, elder brother 
of Sir John Montagu. 

The westernmost shield on the south side is charged with 
Sir John's own arms — Montagu with a border sable impaling 

4 8 


The next is unfinished. This also is an impaled shield 
bearing the Montagu fess of three fusils within a plain black 
border on the dexter side, but with the woman's half of it un- 
touched. It may have been designed to refer to another John 
Montagu, Sir John's son and heir, with space left for the 
insertion of the arms of his wife, the thrice married Maud 
Francis. If this supposition is correct it would indicate that 
at Sir John's death his son assumed the plain border as head 
of the junior branch of the family. 

It will be noticed that in both these examples of impaled 
shields the whole of the narrow border is shown — plain proof 
that the practice of omitting that part of the border which 
touches the line of impalement did not invariably obtain in 
Sir John's days. 

It is certain that during his father's lifetime the younger 
John employed a different border as his own mark of cadency. 
The next shield carved with Montagu in a border sable 
engrailed quartering Monthermer clearly belongs to him. 

The bearer of this interesting quartered coat succeeded to 
his father's barony in 1390, becoming Lord Monthermer 
when his mother died a few years afterwards, and third Earl 
of Salisbury at his uncle William's death in 1397. 

The fourth shield on the south side is also unfinished. It 
is in fact absolutely untouched except for a fine line carefully 
engraved from chief to foot as if preparation had been made 
for the carving of a third impaled shield of arms. 

At the eastern end of the monument appear the arms of 
Montagu differenced with the plain black border, and this 
doubtless is a second allusion to Sir John. 

It is a little surprising that no Graunson coat appears any- 
where on this noble tomb. Perhaps it may have been intended 
to commemorate the parents of the dead knight by means of 
the last escutcheon on the south side, but this was never 
actually done. 



Man and Montagu. 


Shields from the Panels of the 

Montagu and Monthekmer. 

Montagu Tomb. 


IN the last volume of The Ancestor we gave an account or 
Mr. Alexander Wedderburn's enquiry into the early history 
of his name. In the making of his two volumes Mr. Wed- 
derburn has left little to do for any Wedderburn genealogist 
who shall come after him, so carefully, so thoroughly and so 
accurately have the Scottish records been sifted by him for 
Wedderburn evidences. 

Yet the Wedderburn book from its note of the first ap- 
pearance of the name in the Ragman Roll of 1296 to its 
account of the rise of the Wedderburns of Dundee at the 
end of the fifteenth century can but confirm the more fortu- 
nate southern genealogist in the belief that his northern 
brother unless descended of the main line of a great his- 
toric house must begin his tale with a web spun from unsup- 
ported tradition or with few and scattered notes of records 
which no honest ingenuity can link into a connected story. 

The history of the Wedderburns begins upon a sure 
foundation with the four Wedderburn householders in Dun- 
dee — James, Walter, David and Robert. Their kinship is 
unknown but undoubted. David is named as early as 1464, 
and must have been born about 1440. The other three must 
have been born near the middle of the century, so that by 
reckoning of years they might all have been one man's sons, 
and their children are spoken of as kinsmen. As each of the 
four was a man of substance and standing in Dundee, we may 
infer that their common ancestor, father or grandfather, was 
also settled in the burgh, so that the family was no new one 
in the neighbourhood. 

Each of these four householders founded a family of 
Wedderburns. The thread of the families descended from 
James and Walter is lost, David's line ended before 1600, 
whilst from Robert came the Wedderburns of Kingennie, 

1 The Wedderburn Book : a History of the Wedderburns in the Counties oj 
Berwick and Forfar, 1 296-1 896, by Alexander Wedderburn ; 2 vols. (Printed 
for private circulation.) 




Easter Powrie, Wedderburn, Blackness, Balindean and Gos- 
ford, the Wedderburn baronets and a Wedderburn peer. 

It is by reason of their ancestral calling, that of clerks and 
notaries, that so much of the Wedderburn history is made 
clear to us. They were town clerks of Dundee from 1557 to 
1 7 1 7 and notaries up to the time of Robert Wedderburn of 
Pearsie, who died in 1786. Such an industry should make 
for the ordered life and moderate prosperity of a family 
which makes little history on its way. But the history of 
Scotland is full of stirring and striving ; the Wedderburns 
have their part in it, and their lives as recorded by their 
descendant are full of interest for all who love bygone days. 

James Wedderburn of Dundee, the first of the four 
Wedderburns of the burgh, was a merchant in West Kirk 
Style and father of five sons and a daughter. With these 
children comes the first quickening of the dry bones of their 
pedigree. Of the younger sons Henry is born, weds and 
dies, and that is for all history of him ; but Gilbert is a 
burgess of fiercer mettle, one more after the mind of 
Sir Walter. His spiritual difficulties lead in 1538 to his 
conviction for heresy and the temporary escheating of his 
goods; but it would seem that his anxieties for the faith 
do not keep him apart from the vigorous town life of Dundee, 
for the next time his goods are escheated it is for killing his 
fellow-burgess David Rollok. That a certain ill-feeling or 
unneighbourliness existed between him and the Rollok family 
may be gathered from the fact that, the year following the 
killing of David, Master Wedderburn needed remission and 
pardon for his share in the slaughter of George Rollok of 
Dundee. His later years were spent in Leith undisturbed by 
the vengeance of surviving Rolloks, and under a safe conduct 
from the Earl of Arran he once came with merchandise up 
the Thames to London. 

The three elder brothers of Gilbert enjoyed a fame beyond 
the limits of Dundee or Leith. James the eldest had c a 
good gift of poesie.' He made comedies and tragedies in the 
broad Scots tongue, plays which c nipped the abuses and 
superstition of the time.' In a tragedy of the beheading of 
St. John Baptist, played at the West Port of Dundee, he 
c carped roughley the abusses and corruptiouns of the Papists,' 
and in the Historie of Dyonisius the Tyranne the Papists 
were nipped again. After so much literature with a purpose 

Alexander Wedderburn of Kingennie. 



it is some wonder that the dramatist died in his bed, but that 
bed was made at Dieppe in France, to which kingdom he had 
judged it wise to c depart secreetlie.' The second brother, 
John Wedderburn, a priest and a reformer, had an even 
greater share of the c good gift of poesie.' Either he or his 
brother Robert was the Dundee priest who drew a good bow 
before the Lord William Howard, the English ambassador, 
when three Scottish landed men and three yeomen shot against 
six Englishmen, winning a hundred crowns and a tun of wine 
and making their native prince very merry for their victory. 
Yet this John Wedderburn's fame rests not on shooting with 
the bow but on his share in the book of Gude and Godlie 
Ballates. The drum of the Salvation Army banged to the 
carnal melodies of the music-hall was anticipated by the 
brothers James, John and Robert Wedderburn, who c turned 
manie bawdie songs and rymes in godlie rymes.' The title 
page of the 1578 edition is worth our quoting. 

c Ane compendious buik of godlie Psalmes and spirituall Sangis 
collectit furthe of sindrie partis of the Scripture, with diverts otheris 
Ballattis changeit out of prophane Sangis in godlie Sangis for 
auoyding of sin and harlatrie? 

Of the hundred and twelve songs or psalms the merit is 
unequal. A Christmas hymn to the tune of c Balulalow ■ is good 
and free. 

O my deir hart, young Jesus sweit, 
Prepair thy creddill in my sperit, 
And I sail rocke the in my hart, 
And neuer mair fra the depart. 

But the sinful song of Johne, cum kis me halts dismally in its 
gude and godly paraphrase, as 

The Lord thy God I am, 

That Johne dois the call, 
Johne representit man, 

Be grace celestiall. 

It may be that controversy and the nipping of Papists 
were nigher to a Wedderburn's hand than mere expository 
theology, for the air of c The Hunt is up ' goes gallantly and 
heartily to a godly song of the hunting of c ane cursit fox/ 

The hunter is Christ, that huntis in haist, 

The houndis are Peter and Paul, 
The Paip is the foxe, Rome is the rox, 

That nubbis us on the gall. 

5 2 


There was a spirit abroad in Scotland which made it im- 
possible to punish such bold heretics too harshly, but John 
Wedderburn could hardly come free away from such work as 
this. He was exiled to England and no more is known of 

Robert Wedderburn, the last of these three strange harps 
of the north, was vicar of Dundee. He is reckoned, and 
upon good ground, author of the Complaynt of Scotland, one of 
the early classics of his country. A merry priest who had 
seen Paris and the world, he seems in odd company with 
those earnest reformers James and John Wedderburn. It is 
impossible to refuse him credit for the song of c Welcum for- 
toun ! welcum agane ! ' a passable love song of a priest to his 
mistress. That mistress was Isobel Lovell, who bore to the 
parson of Dundee two sons for whom letters of legitimation 
were obtained within a year of their father's death. The 
legitimated family flourishes for three generations as merchant 
burgesses, but ends in 1639, leaving a son Francis for whom 
no letters of legitimation can be had. He may have been 
the Commander Francis Weatherbourne whose man of war, 
Charity y was captured at Campeachy in the days of Charles II. 

Fourth in descent from James of the Gude and Godlie 
Ballattis we find two interesting brothers named John and 
James, after a persistent Wedderburn custom very confusing 
to their historian. John, born about 1583, wandered abroad 
very w early, and in 1609 his countryman, William Lithgow, 
the Lithgow whom the Inquisition caught and tortured, found 
him in Padua, a learned mathematician and one kind to 
another Scottish wanderer. Now and again he came back to 
Dundee, to which town he gave the c Sang Scooll ' in 1637. 
In 1628 he was in Moravia, where he is styled protomedicus ; 
and the doctor's sons were Moravians after him, one of them 
being returned as c oy and air ' to his grandfather, old John 
Wedderburn of the Flukergait in far away Dundee. To 
Dundee the doctor's descendants never come back, and as 
high and well born Wetterborns they are said to have existed 
in Moravia as late as 1 8 1 6. James, the younger brother of 
the Moravian doctor, left Dundee also, and in England was 
tutor to the children of the famous Isaac Casaubon. His 
fortunes carried him backward and forward. He was minister 
at Harstone in Ely diocese, and professor at St. Andrews 
College, rector of Compton in Winchester diocese and Canon 

Robert Wedderburn of Pearsie. 
i 708- i 786. 



of Ely. The Ely canonry he surrendered on receiving an 
uneasier honour, for in 1636 he was consecrated Bishop of 
Dunblane by the favour of Archbishop Laud. As may be 
imagined there was no rest in Scotland of 1636 for those 
who brought the Babylonish garment of prelacy within 
her borders. By December of 1638 he was declared excom- 
municate by the General Assembly at Glasgow for his share 
in introducing < the new liturgy and popish ceremonies. ' The 
fury of the pamphleteers broke over his head, and the 
Arminian errors which he had c stuffed ' to the young students 
of St. Andrews were fiercely preached down. Wedderburn 
bent to the storm and turned south again to find a quiet 
grave in Canterbury Cathedral in 1639. 

Of the four Wedderburn patriarchs in Dundee we come 
to Walter Wedderburn styled c in the Welgait.' His line 
begins with burgesses of Dundee and ends, so far as the quest 
of the genealogist may follow it, with ministers of the kirk, 
one a covenanter, whose opinions take him before my Lords 
of the Privy Council. He escapes with a month in the Tol- 
booth, being as it seems a lukewarm ' testifier.' Another 
minister, Alexander Wedderburn of Forgan, was a c very 
eminent, great and learned man/ or, according to another 
authority, c a crazy Presbyterian fanatic* Neither qualifica- 
tion has carried his fame to posterity, and were it not for the 
labours of Mr. Alexander Wedderburn he would be little 
more than a name in a pedigree, and misplaced at that. When 
the Highland Host went jinking through Kilmarnock in 1678, 
being then minister in the town, he stood forward to rebuke 
c the heinousness and barbarity of their ravages.' Such a 
rebuke, doubtless in the best manner of old Mause Headrigg 
( c bastards o' the hure o' Babylon were the best words in her 
wame '), brought a Highland musket butt against his breast, 
and from that blow he sickened and died. Mr. Alexander 
Wedderburn's precise statement of this martyr's ancestry and 
career are in amusing contrast with the dashing style of his 
grandfather's little history of the Wedderburns, written in 
1824. In this work it is said of Alexander of Forgan that 
c his birth is uncertain and was very probably illegitimate.' 
But c J. W.' of this earlier Wedderburn book will not how- 
ever bring himself to lop the minister of Forgan from the 
family tree, comforting himself with the douce saying, c It is 
puir clan that has neither whores nor rogues among it.' 



The third of the four householders in Dundee was David 
Wedderburn in the Murrygait, a town councillor of Dundee. 
He left two sons, one whom carried on his line. This son, 
David Wedderburn the second, is party to a bargain in 1527 
recorded in the Dundee Protocol Books. Alexander Blak sells 
him for the sum of twenty pounds his maritagium or right to 
marry, and agrees to take any wife David may find for him. 
David's choice is left untrammeled, for Alexander avers that he 
will take the bride to his arms even if she be ugly or halting. 
He will take her even if ailing and diseased, if he may be allowed 
to bar two diseases only. Mr. Alexander Wedderburn is of 
opinion that this was only David's elaborate method of ex- 
tinguishing the gallant Blak's rivalry in a certain quarter, 
and points to the fact that David is soon after found to be 
married to one Christine Jameson, but the guess seems to 
have little to recommend it. Surely Mr. Wedderburn is 
aware that a maritagium was in 1527 as saleable an article as 
a quarter of oats. This David the younger is a substantial 
citizen as is shown by the offices he holds in the burgh, and 
by the fact that in his house the council hide the church plate 
and jewels during war time. The cares of office however did 
not keep him from entering heartily into the Wedderburn feud 
with the family of Rollok, and in 1543 he was one of those 
who were fugitive from law for the killing of David Rollok. 

John Wedderburn of Craigie, great grandson of old David 
of the Murraygait, was bred to the law, whose grave service 
he left for more stirring employment under David, Earl of 
Crawford. His career is pleasantly variegated with woundings 
and murders, and here it may be noted that we have many 
Wedderburns who slay their man in chance medley or lurking 
ambush, but never a Wedderburn neck which stretches a rope 
therefor. It would seem that the hempen cord which was so 
ready to jerk the meddler in politics off his legs spared the 
mere slayer in a burgh brabble or family quarrel. The 
merchant burgher who has dirked his neighbour in the street 
is put to the horn and outlawed, but is soon at home again 
in his counting-house never a penny the worse. 

This John Wedderburn comes into our English State 
Papers c disguised in mariner's apparel and that of the meaner 
sort,' in which costume Lord Eure arrests him in 1597 and 
sends word thereof to Burghley. Lord Eure's description of 
his capture certainly justifies the arrest, and provides us with 



a pleasing picture of an ancestral Wedderburn. Master John 
speaks French reasonably well, has been in the King of 
France's service, and has been honourably employed by the 
Lord Bothwell in compassing the death of Sir Robert Kerr 
by blowing up his castle at Halleden. His carriage is wise, 
and his birth and manner of disguising yield apparent sus- 
picion of more devilish practices than he revealeth — in a 
word, a First Murderer. He is c of reasonable stature, verie 
square bodyed, bigg legged, one or two scarres on the hight 
of his foreheade, faire complexioned, yellowe berded, the 
haire of his heade like to white amber/ He is cunning in 
State matters, and is an engineer c proferring to make petares 


Notarial Symbol of Alexander Wedderburn, Town Clerk of Dundee, 

14 Oct. 1575. 

and garnettes, ingynes of war.' With his own petard the 
engineer is presumably hoist, for his wife is soon afterwards a 
widow, and the male line of the third house of the Dundee 
Wedderburn ends handsomely. 

The last of our four Dundee householders is Robert 
Wedderburn, who was probably born about 1460. Like the 
three other ancestral figures his contemporaries he is a man 
of substance and credit, being a 6 bailie of Dundee.' He 
married with Janet Froster, who survived him, by whom he 
had five sons and a daughter. From the second son of this 
marriage descend the Wedderburns of Kingennie, Easter 
Powrie, and that ilk, Blackness, Balindean and Gosford, in 



fact all the greater landed families of the name, and fronvthis 
second son Robert descends also Mr. Alexander Wedderburn, 
historiographer to all the Wedderburns that have been. 

This Robert, son of Robert, is a notary in Dundee. His 
eldest son Alexander is town clerk of Dundee, the second son 
Peter is a merchant who sails to Norway and buys bowstrings 
there, and the third son Robert follows his father's calling. 
Therefore after this generation the family business is with the 
clerkly quill, and we have pages covered with facsimiles of the 
curious symbols and flourishes in which the old world notaries 

wJjfiC -torn Ctccntfte <p 
nan vevi ePc*£i*wS^ 

Notarial Symbol of Robert Wedderburn of Dundee, 1582. 

delighted, symbols of which we reproduce two for examples, 
noting at the same time that, curious as they may be, they 
cannot compare with the yet more intricately beautiful flour- 
ishes of notaries of the south. 

Alexander the first of the town clerks is allowed by the 
town to hand on his office to another Alexander, his son and 
heir. His arms with the arms of Helen Ramsay his wife are 
carved upon a stone of which we are allowed to reproduce an 
engraving. Of his prosperity we have a material sign in his 
purchases of the lands of Wester Gourdie and Kingennie, the 


latter estate being bought from a Guthrie in 1 600, from which 
date Alexander bears the territorial style of c Kingennie.' 
Both estates are still, after three hundred years, in the hands 
of the descendants of Alexander. 

The last male Wedderburn of Kingennie, seventh of 
that style, fifth of Powrie and third of Wedderburn, is David 
Wedderburn, whose father had obtained the creation in 1708 
of the lands of Easter Powrie into a free barony, to be called 
the barony of Wedderburn, to the enhancement of the pride 
of his house and to the confusion of genealogists who may 
be persuaded thereby that the Wedderburns came again at the 
last into possession of their original stammbaus. The last 

MMMM 1 ' ::::::: 

Carved Stone from a fireplace in the old town house of the Wedder- 

burn and Helen Ramsay his wife, 1590— 1600. 

Wedderburn of Kingennie is a sickly child whose c health 
may not readily allow him to goe class to a publick schoole,' 
but grows up a hard-drinking, fox-hunting laird, the very 
man to end a long pedigree. A family manuscript tells of a 
characteristic Scots Saturday night's revel in which Kingennie 
and his friends plan to drink with the minister of Strath- 
martine to keep him from the morrow's pulpit. But Kin- 
gennie's head is weaker than the Reverend Mr. Maxwell's, 
who drinks the party out and lays them upon feather beds 
round the dining table before he goes back to his manse and 



his sermon making. He dies in 1761 and Kingennie goes 
at last to the Scrymgeours, whose heir succeeding must bear 
the shield of Wedderburn of that ilk and use the name of Wed- 
derburn only. 

The average Englishman peers at the history of Scotland 
through one window only — the novels of Sir Walter Scott. 
In the history of a Scottish family he will ask what the 
ancestors were doing in the time of Queen Mary, and whether 
any of them rode with, or were ridden down by, the Lord 
Viscount Dundee. But most of all he will ask for their 
doings in the '15 and the '45, and Whig or Radical as he may 
be at home in the south he will be impatient of any cowardly 
reluctance on the part of eighteenth century Scotsmen to 
follow the young Adventurer. 

Out of such inquiry the Wedderburns come well. A 
race of town clerks and notaries they were yet men of their 
hands, as the Rolloks and other unsympathetic families often 
found to their cost on the plainstones of Dundee. That 
these Wedderburns were c well affected ' is shown by the 
record of Sir John Wedderburn the physician to King Charles 
the First and the Second, being knighted for his share in the 
plotting for the Blessed Restoration. Not only is he knighted, 
but a pension of £2,000 yearly is assigned to him, and with 
a fortune rare amongst the old royalist friends of the merry 
Charles he secures the payment of that pension wherewith 
Sir Alexander his nephew is aided to buy Blackness, and 
another nephew, Sir Peter, to buy Gosford in East Lothian. 
This Peter is a lord of Session by the title of Lord Gos- 
ford. From his elder surviving son came the Wedderburn 
baronets of Gosford, who took the name of Halkett on 
marriage with an heir of that name, and from the younger 
Wedderburn peer, Alexander, Lord Chancellor, and first and 
last Earl of Rosslyn of the Wedderburn name. 

More than one Wedderburn meddled with the rising of 
171 5, but their Jacobite adventures in 1745 are writ large. 
Sir John Wedderburn, fifth baron of Blackness, was out in 
the '45 and in arms at Gladsmuir. With a white cockade 
in his hat, and a sword at his side, he collected excise for the 
prince in Perth by beat of drum from November of that year 
to the next February, when he joined the lost army as it fell 
back from Derby. After Culloden we find him a prisoner 
and a doomed man from his taking. He was, as he said, 

Tombstone in the howff of Dundee of James Anderson 

(15II-84) AND HIS WIFE GrISELL WEDDERBt T R\ (1518-72). 



1 among the elect and not to be parted with,' and he put aside 
the suggestion of a petticoated prison-breaking, after the 
manner of the Lord Nithsdale, with the remark that he might 
as well die then as twenty years hence, and that he would not 
risk disturbance and ill usage on the night before his death. 
He went to the scaffold with the wonted dignity of the Briton 
taken in rebellion, that dignity which, as ambassadors' letters 
have told us, was the envy of the peoples of the continent. 
The gallows on Kennington Common was the place of his 
death, and where that gallows was is now the altar of Kenning- 
ton Church. His letters before his death are the calm writings 
of one at ease in his mind, and he could find the heart at the 
moment when he learned that twenty-four hours measured his 
span of life remaining to write one letter to his son John, 
remonstrating with him for parting too early with his money, 
and another to a friend regretting that his son John had ' not 
the true value for a shilling which is a very bad sign of thriv- 
ing in one of his age.' John had served with his father and 
carried a pair of colours in Lord Ogilvy's regiment, and his 
doomed father feared that this c last half year's employment ' 
would unsettle his mind for business matters. Evidently 
more than a little of the clerks of Dundee clung to their 
descendant the Culloden rebel. It is good to learn that 
master John, who fled abroad, grew to be a rich man in 
Jamaica, despite his careful father's auguries. His grandson 
is now Sir William Wedderburn of Balindean, whose elder 
brother, with his young wife and child, were amongst the first 
victims of the mutiny of 1857. 

The baronet of Blackness found many kinsfolk risking 
their necks on the desperate emprise. His two brothers were 
amongst them. The elder, Robert Wedderburn, who was c of 
Pearsie ' in right of his wife Isobel Edward of Pearsie, raised 
recruits for the Glen Proason company, whose colours were 
carried by young John who had not the c true value for a 
shilling.' The Lord Ogilvy, colonel of the regiment, was 
mounted by him after Culloden and helped out of the king- 
dom. Pearsie himself took to the hills, from which he 
descended with a protection from the Lord Justice Clerk, and 
boldly attended a county meeting at Forfar. Through all 
these troubles he clung to his office of Sheriff Clerk of Angus, 
and died in his own bed at Pearsie in 1786, his portrait 
showing him for a fine old Scots gentleman to crack with 



whom would have been meat and drink to Sir Walter. 
Thomas Wedderburn was the third of these craigs in peril. 
He was at Culloden with Sir John his brother, but came safely 
away, and to our astonishment as we read, went on with his 
daily work as collector of excise. His son followed his first 
cousin to Jamaica, and like him came by a fortune there. 
Fourth in descent from this Jamaica planter is Mr. Alexander 
Wedderburn, the historian of the family. 

We have already spoken of the infinite labour which 
Mr. Wedderburn has bestowed on this history. For this 
labour a survey of his two volumes should repay him. He 
has put on record for his family a multitude of accurately 
transcribed and judiciously edited muniments of the most 
varied kinds, and to the English speaking public he has given 
a book which will always remain a storehouse of curious 
knowledge of Scottish life for the last five centuries. The 
family letters alone go far to this end. Let us close our 
appreciation with a transcript of one which comes nearer to 
literature than to history — Thomas Wedderburn's letter 
written to his wife Katherine Dunbar as he lay in his Inverness 
quarters before Culloden. 

My Dear, — 

I am just now come to my Quarters, its about Eleven at night. There 
is nothing in my mind, but God and you. I cannot go to Bed until I tell 
you, that I never think myself entire but when I am with you. I would be 
very happy if 1 could now Lye Down in your Arms. I shall Lye down with 
regret : With no more Comfort, than my Conscience can affoord. I Bless 
God for the peace of mind I have. And for the gracious assistance he has 
given me by you. Our engagements are such, that we must be Happy, or 
not, in Excess ; I do think that IndifFerency, if ever ws allow it to 
Enter our Minds, would soon turn to Hate. You do give me, and can con- 
tinue to me, all the pleasure that a Wife I Love can give ; you affoord me all 
the Happiness that a Virtuous Companion can produce in a mind already 
full of you. It is in your power, to make me more miserable than I can 
tell you. It is beyond Expression, it is more than possible you can Imagine. 
I am satisfied of the Truth and Strength of our Affection, and hope it shall 
end only with Life itself. In the strictest Truth of my Heart, I assure you, 
I am wholly yours. 

Now I am just going to Bed. I know not if ever I shall Sleep ; or if I 
do Sleep, I know not if I shall ever Awake, it may be the Sleep of Death. I 
thank God for his past Mercies. I beg a Continuance of them. I cannot 
Breath, once, without them. This is a serious Subject, but it is what one 
will reflect upon, if we Die as we would wish, not a sudden Death. From 
which Good Lord deliver us. 

God Bless you and our Dear Boy. I am 

Your affectionate and faithfull Husband 

Tho s Wedderburn. 


More than a century and a half since Thomas Wedderburn 
sat down to write this letter in his Inverness quarters, but 
nevertheless one feels an indiscreet peeper as one reads it. 
In a line here and there, in the phrase of the c Virtuous Com- 
panion,' there is a flavour of the eighteenth century, the 
eighteenth century of hairpowder and of Samuel Richardson, 
but the rest is a true lover's letter, purely and simply pathetic. 
If a Wedderburn had to suffer on Kennington Common, one 
is glad that brave Sir John, the last steadfast thoughts of 
whose blunt mind were bent upon rebuking his boy's lavish- 
ness with his pocket money, was the Wedderburn chosen, and 
that Thomas Wedderburn gat him safe home again after Cullo- 
den to the arms of Katharine Dunbar. 

Pewter Box dated 1600 which belonged to Catherine Wedderburn 
with the arms of wedderburn and duncan. she was wife of wllliam 
Duncan, Surgeon, of Dundee. 






BEFORE further developing my views on this subject it 
seems advisable to make some answer to the criticisms 
which have been made on my previous article by Mr. Edward 
Owen in the April number of Archxologia Cambrensis and by 
Mr. Round in the last volume of The Ancestor, though by so 
doing I shall have to anticipate the future course of my 

Mr. Owen appears to suggest that a critical knowledge of 
Welsh is a necessary qualification for a student of Welsh 
pedigrees. So far as I am aware, with the exception of the 
chronicles and similar works (some of which have been trans- 
lated), there are no c records/ properly so called, written in 
Welsh. It is easy to learn enough of the language to under- 
stand the pedigrees themselves, and I trust that no one who is 
sufficiently interested in the subject to test them by evidence of 
record, by which means alone it is possible to arrive at a true 
conclusion as to their value, will be discouraged from so doing 
by Mr. Owen's remarks. 

The principal points I desired to prove were : Firstly, 
that the provisions of the Welsh laws practically necessitated 
that pedigrees should be officially kept ; and, secondly, that 
there were certain persons whose duty it was to keep those 
pedigrees. The anomalous laws which I quoted in favour of 
the second point are no doubt forgeries, in so far as they are 
not the work of Dyfnal Moelmud ; taking them at their 
worst they are a collection of legal maxims made at the be- 
ginning of the seventeenth century, and therefore they seem 
to be a sufficiently good authority as to the state of matters 
in the middle of the sixteenth century when the Welsh laws 
and customs were with certain exceptions abolished. It 
therefore appears that a system of pedigree keeping by c the 
Bards ' was at that period in full working order, and such 
system being rendered necessary by the laws of Howell dha, 
and the Bardic order being independent of such laws, it seems 
a reasonable conclusion that pedigrees had been systematically 


kept during the continuance of the laws. There is however 
other evidence that can be adduced on this point if necessary. 

Let me assure Mr. Round that I had no intention of c re- 
buking " him for seeking contemporary evidence ; the more 
Welsh pedigrees are tested the better, whether they be proved 
or disproved. As an important critical principle is involved 
it is well to be quite clear. Mr. Round says : 1 c . . . We come 
to Gerald de Windsor. . . . Gerald " Cambrensis " styles him 
on one occasion " Geraldus de Windesora." This appears to be 
the only ground for making him a son of Walter Fitz Other/ 

This Mr. Round proceeds to do, but surely not only on the 
ground last mentioned. I am unwilling to believe that such a 
casual allusion would by itself have satisfied so exacting a critic, 
had he not, perhaps unconsciously, been influenced by the 
received pedigrees. As confirmatory evidence of them, the 
allusion has possibly a certain weight. We have however two 
independent pedigrees in the Harleian Roll and The Golden 
Grove from two independent sources ; adding to this the 
evidence of Giraldus' allusion it seems permissible to hold that 
the three separate links form a sufficiently strong chain to 
stand the requisite test. 

Mr. Round styles Dr. Gwenogvryn Evans a c Welsh expert,' 
and seems to place great reliance on his opinion on the value of 
Welsh pedigrees, which opinion appears in the introduction to 
his admirable report on the Peniarth MSS., and does not seem 
to have been founded on any evidence but that afforded by the 
pedigrees themselves. Mr. Owen on the other hand has stated 
that ■ an enquiry ' (into the historical accuracy of Welsh pedi- 
grees in general) c is urgently needed in view of the uncritical 
remarks of the Historical Manuscripts Commissioner in the 
preface to his report upon the Peniarth MSS/ Let Dr. Evans 
speak for himself. c When a pedigree reaches back beyond the 
third generation of the time in which it was originally drawn 
up, unless supported by independent documentary evidence, the 
work of even the most honest man cannot be trusted. Take 
for instance the vellum roll (some seven yards long) of pedi- 
grees at Mostyn Hall in the hand of Guttyn, a man thoroughly 
trustworthy as to matters of his own time, and yet in that roll 
certain pedigrees are traced back to Adam son of God without 
any conscious sense of the incongruous/ The first part of 

1 Ancestor, ii. 94, 95. 



this certainly needs modification, for before surnames became 
fixed in Wales a Welshman as a rule carried in his name at 
least three generations, so that on the ordinary assumption that 
a man knows his grandfather, an individual's statement may 
be relied on for at least five generations. 

Dr. Evans further appears to assume that a pedigree must 
be accepted as a whole or not at all, and that the extravagances 
which are introduced into pedigrees of the class of which he 
gives an example render the rest utterly untrustworthy. With 
this I cannot agree. Taking a point rather lower down, c Brutus 
ap Silvius as Geoffrey of Monmouth, first monarch of Britain/ 
who frequently heads these family pedigrees, it will be found that 
there are very few lines brought down from him, and that his 
legendary descendants (say about the fifth century a.d.) are by 
no means numerous — the inference being that the traditional 
chieftains of that period had ancestors tacked on to them for 
the purpose of making them of equal genealogical importance. 
In these legendary pedigrees the curious will find many scraps 
of strange lore which may prove of interest to mythologists. 
But if I am right in concluding that the laws of Howell dha 
necessitated the keeping of pedigrees it follows that a line may 
be drawn about the middle of the tenth century above which 
tradition and legend must be allowed free play, while below it 
another state of things may be expected. I have pointed out 
that there is now in existence a contemporary collection of 
pedigrees of the tenth century, others of the fourteenth, 
several of the fifteenth and sixteenth, and any number of 
later ones, so that it appears a fair conclusion that the process 
of compilation has been going on continuously from very early 
times, and that each fresh writer has added to the material he 
found to hand matters within his own knowledge. That there 
are forgeries is probable, that there are mistakes in compilation 
is only to be expected, and that there are conflicting author- 
ities on some points is certain. 

The allowances I say must be made for these pedigrees are 
no doubt serious — the omissions of generations and affiliations 
to step-parents and parents-in-law in particular. 1 These may 
be to some extent discounted by a collation of the various col- 
lections of pedigrees. I cannot agree with Mr. Round that 
the removal of dates and facts does away with what is c virtu- 

1 My second 4 axiom ' should have read, 'An individual is occasionally 
affiliated to . . . one of his wife's parents and one of his own. 


ally the sole test that we can apply to the value of these 
pedigrees.' I believe that in their original state they consisted 
merely of a string of names, and that the dates and facts were 
later additions ; in many cases they are correct, but it seems 
better to make a clean sweep and put in the true details afresh. 
Mr. Round is unlucky in the illustration he adduces in sup- 
port of his views, for, doubtless most unfortunately for him- 
self, Cynfyn, Lord of Powys and Earl of Chester, 1 instead of 
living somewhere about the beginning of the twelfth century, 
as Mr. Round says he must have done, died before 1070 (the 
date at which the first real Earl of Chester known to G.E.C. 
became so), unless he managed to survive marriage with a 
widow fifty years. 

Here I must now stop ; on another occasion I hope to 
show how a Welsh pedigree may be tested : firstly by com- 
paring the different collections, and secondly by the application 
of record evidence, for so far am I from undervaluing records, 
that I fully recognize that by this latter test must Welsh pedi- 
grees ultimately stand or fall. 

H. J. T. WOOD. 

1 This is of course merely a translation of 'Arglwydd Powys a Iarll 





ANOSTRE seygnur le Rey, vous monstre . . . s vostre 
surizian, cum il feust lautre jour a son peyse vostre 
conge, vindrent genz de pays a ly, e se pleindrerent de 
. . . Hour de dyme dener, scet a dire monsire Roger de Swy- 
nerton, ke il aveit pris autrement ke il ne deveit fere, ceo est a 
dire en chesconne vile marchaunde, C. souz, ou plus, e sur 
chescune autre vile petyte, solum ceo ke la vyle feust riche. 
E, outre ceo, il aveit fest crier grosse monee, e peisa lour mone 
encontre cele grosse monee, ke touz jors aveit il de deinz vint 
souz deus souz, ke bien amounte a cente liveres, e saunz 
ceo il est coronner de payse. E pris ke il ad este en le office 
ad il pris C. mars ou plus, a ceo ke gentz du payse dient. 

Sire, fetes enquere vostre dreit par leaus justices, e vous 
troveret ke ceo est en la manere cum ieo vous ai fet entendaunt, 
eel meymes chivaler ki vynt ove vous en Gales saunz armure 
ove ki vous futes courtuce. 


Tradatur peticio baronibus scaccarii, et fiat ibi execucio in 
debita forma pro statu regis bono processu. 1 

Translation. — To our lord the King — Your * surizian ' 
. • . shows you that when he was the other day at his coun- 
try, (by) your leave, the people of the country came to him 
and complained of (? the collector) of the tenth penny, that is 
to say, of Sir Roger de Swynerton, that he had taken other- 
wise than he ought to have done, that is to say, in each 
merchant town one hundred sous or more and in each other 
little town according as the town was rich. And besides this 
(that) he had caused gross money to be proclaimed, and taken 
their money against that gross money, and that thus he always 
gained two sous in twenty sous, which easily amounted to one 
hundred pounds ; and this without his being coroner of the 

1 Ancient Petitions, No. E. 25, Record Office. 


country, and that since he has been in the office, he has taken 
100 marcs or more, according to what people of the country- 

Sire, make enquiry into your rights by loyal justices, and 
you will find that this is so, as I have given you to under- 
stand. That same knight who came to you into Wales with- 
out armour, to whom you were courteous. 

Note. — This curious complaint, addressed to the king himself, cannot 
be said to be strictly anonymous, for in his last sentence the writer reveals his 
identity in a clue which, though it may have been inscrutable to private 
secretaries, would be clear enough to the king. 'That knight who came to 
you into Wales without armour, and to whom you were courteous.' There 
was an expedition into Wales in the spring of 1295, and to that expedition the 
knight probably refers. What is certain is that the events complained of 
occurred in the year in which King Edward I. was levying a tenth penny on 
all his liege subjects, for it was in connection with the collection of that tenth 
penny that the trouble arose. Furthermore, the collector whose exactions are 
challenged was Roger de Swynnerton. And thus it comes that the following 
information taken from the Patent Rolls and the Parliamentary Writs helps us 
to the exact date of the petition : — 

In 1294, Roger de Swynnerton, Knight, is appointed assessor and 
collector in the county of Stafford of the tenth granted in Parliament at 
Westminster on the morrow of St. Martin, 12th November, his com- 
mission being tested the same day. 1 

It is not likely that Roger de Swynnerton accompanied the army into 
Wales in the ensuing spring, as he was then busy in the king's service in the 
county. The petition intimates that he was also made king's coroner while in 
the discharge of those duties, and that was probably so, because at the time of 
his death, early in 1298, on 8 February, the king's close writ is issued 
to the sheriff to cause another coroner to be elected in his stead. 2 A.D. 1295 
therefore would be the date of the armourless knight's petition of complaint. 

Who was the ' knight without armour ' who made it his business to inform 
thus against one of his neighbours ? His actual name is not disclosed, but it 
is possible to solve his secret all the same. He calls himself the king's surizian 
by which I understand that he was a king's suzerain, that is, a tenant of 
the king holding land of him directly in chief. He seems to have got leave, a 
few days before, to visit his own county, which was certainly the county of 
Stafford. He was also apparently a man of some local importance, for the 
people came and complained to him that Sir Roger de Swynnerton had 
oppressed them, exacting more from them than was due all through the 
county, 100 sous or more from large towns and proportionately from small, 
and above all weighing their light money, their clipped and sweated coins, 
against 'gross money,' thus clearing 10 per cent for himself or fully £100. 

1 Rot. Pat. 22 Edw. I. m. 2 ; Parliamentary Writs, i. 27. 
2 Rot. Claus. 26 Edw. I. 



All this, say they, he did before he was even appointed coroner, while after 
his appointment he took for himself 100 marcs or more. 

And then our knight sauns armure closes his anonymous report thus : 
4 Sire, enquire into your rights by lawful justices and you will find that all 
this is just as I have said. The same knight who came to you into Wales without 
armour, and to whom you were courteous? 

The necessary conditions we find fulfilled in the person of a certain knight 
named Sir Robert de Standon who was an enemy of the king's coroner Roger 
de Swynnerton, whose manor of Standon adjoined the manor of Swynnerton, 
and who, in addition to his other lands held of the barony of Stafford, held 
also three virgates of land in Fenton directly of the king himself, which his 
father Vivian de Standon had inherited as heir of his kinswoman Philippe de 
Fenton in 25 Henry III. 

Between the two families, the Swynnertons and the Standons, existed a 
long and a bitter feud of which the Plea Rolls of the time afford ample 
evidence. As early as 1 247 they were at law with each other respecting 
their respective rights to common of pasture on Swynnerton Heath. A 
final concord was made at Lichfield on 3 February, 1248, by which the 
Standons were to have reasonable common of pasture for all kinds of cattle, 
and their villeins for all kinds except swine, while the Swynnertons were to be 
at liberty to break up and cultivate the half of the heath towards the north, 
the Standons agreeing to pay the Swynnertons for pasture a rent of 4/. yearly 
at Swynnerton. 1 

The dispute came before the courts again in 1276, 2 and in the next reign 
in the year 1322, when other causes had conspired to embitter the feud, we 
have the evidence of a curious endenture in Norman French, still existing, to 
prove the existence of long-standing injuries inflicted admittedly by the 
Standons upon the Swynnertons. The indenture bears testimony that Vivian 
de Standon (the son of Robert above-named) with certain of his friends had 
bound themselves in a sum of 500 marcs to Roger de Swynnerton by a recog- 
nizance made in the Chancellery of the Lord the King, Edward the son of 
Edward, the second day of May in the year of his reign the fifteenth, of 
which 500 marcs Roger de Swynnerton had received and acknowledged the 
sum of 330 marcs, and it goes on to say that the said Roger grants for himself, 
his heirs, etc., that if the said Vivian de Standon will conduct himself to him 
well and decently as one neighbour should do to another in word and 
deed and do him no damage in goods, or any other manner of wrong, 3 
that then the said recognizance of 500 marcs shall be of no force for ever, and 
that Vivian de Standon for his part grants for himself, his heirs, etc., that if it 
can be lawfully shown that he injures Roger de Swynnerton in any way 
against the form aforesaid that then the recognizance as regards the balance 
unpaid, namely 160 marcs of the 500 marcs, shall stand, in whatsoever hands 
it may be found. The principal witness to this remarkable instrument is 
' Monsire James de Audeley,' afterwards to be so famous as the hero of Poictiers. 

1 Rot. Pat. 22 Edw. I. m. 2 ; ParUamentary Writs, i. 27. 
* Rot. C/aus. 26 Edw. I. 

3 Qe si il soy porte bien a ly et convenablement come veysin fera a 
autre en dit et en fait et ne soydoyne contre lui en meyntenaunce a null ou 
en autre maner a tort qe le dit reconisaunce, etc. 


The date-clause runs as follows : ' Escrit a Swynnerton le lundy procheyne 
apres la feste de la Translation de Seynt Thomas le Martir Pan de Nostre 
Seygnour mil trescents vynt 2 ime (1322). 

On the whole, therefore, it will be seen that there are cogent reasons 
for supposing that the knight who laid anonymous charges with King 
Edward I. against Sir Roger de Swynnerton the elder, the collector of the 
tenth in the county of Stafford, was Sir Robert de Standon, one of the 
king's suzerains, and that he was the chivakr sans armure in the expedition 
into Wales of 1295. 1 


A gardeyne Dengleterre et au consail nostre seigneur le Roi 
mostre Roger de Swynnerton que come nostre seigneur le Roi 
li avoit graunte un oier et terminer a monsire Johan de Somery 
et monsire Rauf Basset en le Conte de Stafford vers Willam 
de Chetelton et autres pluseur trespaseurs de ceo qil debruser- 
ent les portes de ces maners et les entrerent en divers leus, et 
ses gentz illeqes trovez baterent, et asquines enpristrent et 
amnerent et emprisonerent, et ces biens et chateux a graunt 
sume pristrent et emporterunt par divers feetz, et estre ceo un 
Alisaundre son baillif tuerent et un Richard son frere mahem- 
erent et nafrerent taunqz ala mort, et qaunt le dit Roger pa li et 
les seons vodraient le dit briefes et ses autres besoignes en le 
pais seure le dit Willam od graunt multitude des mesfisours, 
armes a chyval et a pe vount de iour et nuit gaitant le dit 
Roger et les seons qil ne se osent mostrer nule part, et mettont 
le peeple de celes parties en tiel effrai que nul nose venir par 
sumonnse ne par attachement devaunt les Ministres de Roi a 
conustre ne iurer de chose que les touche tauntz remedie seit 
mis et mesqz nostre seigneur le Roi maunda a viscounte par son 
brief qil feit defendre tieux chivauchez et effraiz et nomement 
devers de dit Roger et les seons, et qil feit attacher les tres- 
pasours si nuls fussent trouer le dit Willam ouesque les tres- 
passers avaunt ditz nount cesse pr le defens le dit Viscounte, 
ne il nest de poer de les attacher ne arester. Parquei il prie 
qe tiel remedie seit ordene que la pees seit meintennez et que 
le peeple purra illeges dreit et lei avoir. 2 

Note. — The former petition belonged to the settled reign of Edward I. 
This pictures the civil disorders of the reign of his son. The petitioner is 
Roger the son and successor of the Roger de Swynnerton already spoken of, 
and the subject of his complaint in the obstruction and the violence which he 

1 Standon Deeds, No. 6, in original at the Stafford Library. 
2 Record Office, No. 7812. 



encountered in the discharge of his office as conservator of the peace for the 
county of Stafford. Associated with him for the hearing and determining of 
cases were John de Somery and Ralf Basset, while one of the chiefs of the 
party hostile to them and the king was William lord of Chetelton. 

The date of the petition, in this case also, can be fixed exactly. It was 
presented in 13 Edward II. 1 3 19— 20, which belonged to a period of great 
disturbance, when Staffordshire, and probably other counties as well, were 
practically under martial law. Roger de Swynnerton, then governor of the 
king's town of Stafford, had been entrusted with the superior custody of the 
peace throughout the county, to do and to exercise those things which should 
tend to the fullest preservation of the same peace, as well for the king's honour 
and advantage as for the tranquillity of the people of those parts. 1 

The petition translates thus : — 

To the guardian of England and to the council of our 
Lord the King Roger de Swynnerton showeth, that, inasmuch 
as he has granted to him an oyer and terminer (as well as) to 
Sir John de Somery and to Sir Raufe Basset in the county of 
Stafford against William de Chetelton and several other 
offenders who had broken down the gates of his manors and 
entered them in divers places and his people there found they 
had beaten and some of them they had seized and led away 
and imprisoned, and his goods and chattels to a great sum they 
had carried off by divers deeds, and besides this one Alexander 
his bailiff they had slain, and one Richard his brother they 
had maimed and beaten almost to death, and when the said 
Roger and his people wanted to serve his briefs and do his 
other business in the country in peace, the said William, with a 
great multitude of armed malefactors, on horse and on foot, 
came day and night, lying in wait for the said Roger and his 
people, so that they dared not show themselves anywhere, 
and they put the people of those parts in such fear that none 
dare come for summons or for attachments before the officers 
of the king to make known or to swear anything that touches 
them unless a remedy be found, and although our lord the 
king ordered the sheriff by his brief that he should forbid 
such raids and such outrages and especially against the said 
Roger and his people aforesaid, yet they have not at the inter- 
diction of the said sheriff desisted, nor has he any power to 
attach or to arrest them. He therefore prays that such remedy 
be ordered that the peace may be kept, and the people there 
have their right and their law. 

Such was the knight's petition. The date of it can be 

1 Patent Rolls, 12 Edw. II. m. 17. 


fixed within a month. It will be observed that it is addressed 
to the Guardian, that is the Regent of England, and to the 
king's council. That necessarily means that it was presented 
at a time when the king was absent from the realm, and the 
particular occasion implied in this document must have been 
the short period of his absence in the summer of 1320, when 
he crossed the Channel to do homage to Philip V. for his pos- 
sessions in France, leaving Aymer de Valance regent of the 
kingdom. He was only absent a little over a month, for he 
sailed on 19 June and returned on 22 July. 1 The petition 
was sent in during that short interval, namely between 1 9 June 
and 22 July, 1320, and the corroborative evidence that this 
must have been the case is found in the following extracts from 
the Rolls. 

(1) At an assize held in 17 Edw. II. 1323-4, the Hundred of Offelow 
presented that James son of William de Stafford and John his brother, on the 
occasion of the contention between James de Stafford and the Swynnertons, 
had assembled a great number of armed men, both horse and foot, in the 12th year 
of the present reign (13 18-9) and had attacked and ill-treated Richard de 
Swynnerton at Eccleshall ; that they were at Burton and Boroughbridge assist- 
ing the Earl of Lancaster ; and that William, Lord of Chetelton, Nicholas 
de Langford, knight, and John de Twyford, knight, are common malefactors 
and disturbers of the peace, and that they were with arms and horses in the society 
of the said James and John de Stafford? 

(2) The king, at the intercession of Nicolas de Verdon, subsequently 
(October 27, 1322) pardoned James and John de Stafford, the sons of William 
de Stafford, junior, for certain of these crimes, and especially for the death of 
Alexander [the bailiff] of Swynnerton by them slain, and also for the outlawry 
pronounced against them. 3 

A comparison of these various evidences, therefore, clearly 
shows that the c petition ' in point must have been forwarded 
after 12 Edw. II. 13 18-9. And the fact that it was pre- 
sented to the regent and not to the king himself fixes its date 
between the narrow limits of 19 June, 1320, the date of the 
king's departure for France, and 22 July of the same year, 
the date of his return. 


1 Feed. ii. 428 ; Pari. Writs, II. ii. 146. 

2 Staff Coll. vii. pt. 2, 23. 

3 Pat. Rolls, 14 Edw. II. m. 19. Dated at York, 27 Oct. 

7 2 



IN a paper entitled c Castle-guard,' which I read before the 
Royal Archaeological Institute some time ago, 1 I advanced 
the suggestion 1 that if we find casde-guard commuted at the 
rate of eightpence a day, we may fairly infer that this com- 
mutation was effected at a time when eightpence a day was the 
recognized value of the service, that is, under Henry II.' 
Since the appearance of this paper the Catalogue of Ancient Deeds, 
issued by the Public Record Oflice, has brought to light the 
record of an actual case of commutation, and this transaction 
can be shown to belong to the reign of Henry II. The 
English abstract given in the Catalogue faithfully reproduces 
the terms, but the document is of such exceptional importance 
that I shall here give the actual text : — 

Notum sit tarn presentibus quam futuris quod ego Man' Arsic clamo 
quietum Gill[ebertu]m filium Johannis Marescall . . . et heredes suos de me 
et de heredibus meis de Warda sua de Doura pro x s[olidis] quos mihi debet 
reddere singulis annis proxima die dominica post clausum Pasche vel ballivo 
meo apud Cogas' T[estibus] Marg[areta] uxore mea ; Alberico Arsic patruo 
meo ; Willelmo Arsic fratre meo ; Unfrido de Bertona . . . Et ex parte Gill- 
[eberti] Ade (sic) de Pirit ' (and 8 others ending with 'Thoma de Piritona'). 

With the genealogical value of this document I have dealt 
in another place ; what we have here to deal with is its 
evidence on castle-guard. And, first, as to its date. Gilbert 
was the son of that John the Marshal who played so prominent 
a part as a supporter of the empress under Stephen, and who 
seems to have died in the year n 65. Gilbert is returned in 
the carta of 11 66 as holding a knight's fee under the Bishop 
of Exeter, 2 another under Richard de Chandos, 3 and one under 
Manasser Arsic, in which he had succeeded his father John. 4 
But on the Pipe Roll of October in that year, although he is 
charged with £100 for his share of his father's lands, a note 
adds that he is dead (p. 95). Thus, as he held under Arsic in 
succession to his father, the date of this charter is narrowed 
down to 1165-6. 5 

1 It was subsequently published in the ArchaologtcalJ ournal (June, 1902). 

2 Red Book of the Exchequer, p. 250. 3 Ibid. p. 284. 4 Ibid. p. 304. 
5 In his edition of Fhistoire de Guillaume le Marechal (1901) M. Meyer 



Coggs (Oxon) was the head of the Arsic barony (held in 
1 1 65-6 by Manasser Arsic), and the holding to which the 
charter relates is identified by the endorsement c Swindon.' 
Mr. Maskelyne, the editor, who, like myself, has not enjoyed 
the advantage of c Advanced Historical Teaching/ has no hesita- 
tion in making this to be c Swindon, co. Wilts/ 1 But if he had 
consulted the index to the Red Book of the Exchequer (p. 1322) 
he would have learnt that the c Suindone ' which owed ward 
to Dover (as part of the Arsic barony) was Sevington (in 
Kent) ! He would have learnt also from the same work 
that, of the other fees in this barony, c Ramesham ' is Faver- 
sham in Kent, that c Karsintone ' may be Keston in Kent, that 
c Baselcote ' also is in Kent, and that c Bartone ' is there also. 
The odd thing, however, is that these places are respectively 
Rampisham in Dorset ; Cassington, Oxon ; Balscote, Oxon ; 
and Barton Ede, Oxon ; Coggs, the head of the barony, being 
also in co. Oxon. These identities are certain, being proved, 
strangely enough, by the very test which Mr. Hall alleges 
himself to have applied ; for they had all alike been held by 
Wadard, the Domesday predecessor of the Arsics. We read, 
for instance, in the Red Book preface : — 

The place-names in this Index have in fact been subjected in turn to a 
three-fold scrutiny. In the first place the apparent form was ascertained by- 
means of topographical indexes and maps ; secondly, these selected forms were 
checked by reference to printed records and county histories ; finally, they 
were subjected to a new and independent scrutiny by ascertaining whether 
the tenants or proprietors mentioned in the text agreed with those recorded 
in Domesday Book, etc., etc. 

It has taken many months to identify, even partially, the Kentish place- 
names alone, for three separate lists occur of the ward-fees of Dover castle in 
which the several place-names often bear neither the faintest resemblance to 
one another nor to the modern forms, which, moreover, do not always exist 
(pp. ccclxxix., ccclxxxii.). 

Just so. If in defiance of county histories, of Domesday 
Book, and of feudal evidence, you persist in trying to dis- 
cover in Kent places which belong to other counties, you will 
naturally find that the modern forms upon which you pitch 
for the purpose will be sometimes destitute of c the faintest 

observes that ' M. Round a etabli dans une lettre publiee par le journal 
The Academy (9 Juillet, 1892) que Jean le Marechal etait mort de"s 1165 et 
qu'il avait laisse ses biens a ses fils Gilbert et Jean ' (iii. 2). 

1 Two of the witnesses are named from the neighbouring village of 
Purton, the * Piritone ' of Domesday. Thomas de ' Peritone ' held one fee 
under Arsic in 1 166. 



resemblance ' to the names of which you are in search. And 
you are likely to expend c many months ' on your curiously 
wrong-headed labour. 

Since I called public attention to the strange results of this 
delusion and to the havoc it made of local history, one of 
Mr. Hall's ablest colleagues has been led, we have seen, like 
myself, to identify Swindon with Swindon and not with Sev- 
ington in Kent. It will be seen, therefore, that when my 
criticism is actually put to the test, its justice is recognized 
from within the walls of the Public Record Office itself. It 
has also, as I write, been recognized even more emphatically 
from within those of the British Museum. In his eagerness 
to vindicate Swereford's knowledge of all Exchequer matters 
Mr. Hall devoted a part of his preface to the official edition 
of the Liber Rubeus to an ex parte attempt to dispute my views 
on the antiquity of scutage. 1 Admitting that it c really matters 
very little except for clearing Swereford's reputation,' 2 he 
endeavoured to discredit my own evidence, and insisted that 
even if genuine, it pointed to a levy which 'was no real 
scutage in the sense of so much per fee of every knight . . . 
but was a lump sum levied as a " common assize " from all 
the military tenants of a single barony ' (p. clvi.). I replied 
to this by a paper on c The antiquity of scutage,' 3 in which 
I printed additional evidence including, as c the most con- 
clusive document,' the British Museum charter, Cotton MS. 
Nero, C. iii. fo. 228, which cannot be later than 1149, in 
which I italicized the words : — 

excepto scutagio quod quando evenerit unum militem dare xx solidos tunc 
ilia det ii solidos. Si miles unus i marcam, ilia xvi denarios 

as proving c that scutage was so established an institution in the 
days of Stephen that it was levied at either a marc or a pound 
on the knight's fee, just as it would be under Henry II. ; the 
system, in short, was fully developed.' 4 Mr. Hall, in the coun- 

1 Red Book of the Exchequer, pp. cli.— clvi. 

2 This is the wrong-headed view that Mr. Hall persisted in taking, speak- 
ing for instance of it as * one of the heaviest charges under which Swereford 
. . . lies at present undefended.' There is of course no charge whatever 
against Swereford's ' reputation ' or veracity. He merely confessed his ignor- 
ance of any evidence on the subject, which evidence has now been brought to 
light and which Mr. Hall has attempted in vain to discredit and stifle, in the 
interest, one must presume, of ' Advanced Historical Teaching.' 

3 Studies on the Red Book of the Exchequer, pp. 1-16. , 4 Ibid. p. 8. 



terblast he issued privately, replied that it was c curious to find * 
me seriously citing c forgeries/ the evidence of which he ridi- 
culed, without deigning to discuss them. 1 

But what is the official verdict of the British Museum 
authorities ? Selecting the above charter for special exhibition 
they drew particular attention to its important mention of 
scutage (see the official guide to the MSS. p. 40) ; and now 
they have selected it for inclusion in their noble volume of 
Facsimiles of Royal and other Charters in the British Museum (vol. 
L), as among those as to which c there is no question as to 
the genuineness.' Moreover in their comments on this 
charter, the official editors observe that — 

The institution of scutage has generally been attributed to Henry II. in 
or about 1 1 56 ; but it is here found in force in Stephen's reign, probably at 
least ten years earlier. Reading Abbey was in fact exempted from it by a 
charter of Henry I. (Round, Feudal England, p. 268) ; and it is also men- 
tioned in an interesting series of charters of Newhouse Abbey, co. Line, 
circ. 1 1 50-5. 2 

The genuineness of my evidence and the justice of my conclu- 
sion is thus triumphantly vindicated, and it follows, to quote 
Mr. Hall's words, that the c familiar view of the institution of 
scutage in the reign of Henry II. must be henceforth for ever 
abandoned.' 3 

Here then we see Mr. Hall endeavouring in vain to throw 
doubt on evidence distasteful to himself, which enables us to 
make an important advance in our knowledge of institutional 
history. In the same work, when editing the documents 
which I had shown to belong to the great Inquest of Sheriffs 
(1 170), although it had been supposed that no such documents 
existed, he similarly endeavoured to reject my discovery and 
brought forward a hopelessly wrong alternative view of his 
own. 4 Here again historians appear to accept, without ques- 
tion, my own identification of these interesting records. 5 One 
has surely a right to protest when an editor, who thus betrays 
his incorrigible wrongheadedness and his inability to interpret 
rightly the documents with which he has to deal, comes for- 
ward to teach us how documents should be edited and to insist 

1 The Commune of London and other Studies, p. xvi. 

2 Notes to charter 1 7. 

3 Red Book of the Exchequer, p. clii. 

4 See The Commune of London, pp. 125—36. 

5 See, for instance, Sir James Ramsay's The Angevin Empire (1903), p. 118. 



upon our need in the matter for c advanced historical teaching ' ! 
1 Diplomatics ' is a beautiful word, but it does not and it cannot 
act as a substitute for logic and for common sense. It is not a 
personal but a public matter when the public is asked to sub- 
scribe in the name of historical teaching to the propagation of 
such editing as that of the Liber Rubens. 

So far back as 1895 tnere appeared in the Transactions of 
the Royal Historical Society a paper on c The progress of His- 
torical Research ' — written, one presumes, by its Director — in 
which it was pointed out that c it is useless to spend hundreds 
and thousands of pounds (as we have done, and in some cases 
are still doing) on the publication of historical texts ' by un- 
qualified editors, the results being seen inter alia in c many topo- 
graphical and philological absurdities' (p. 274). So far as 
topographical absurdities are concerned, I think we may fairly 
concur in this expression of opinion when we examine the Dover 
ward lists in the Red Book of the Exchequer. It was also urged, 
with good reason, that c the editor must interpret the cipher 
(sic) of the scribe by means of the most approved methods of 
historical, genealogical, topographical and philological learn- 
ing.' 1 And the attention of the Fellows was called to the 
subject as c one which will inevitably attract much notice during 
the next few years.' The prophecy fulfilled itself. In the 1902 
volume a part of the Presidential address is devoted to that ful- 
filment. 2 The President referred to the above paper as having 
brought forward c the importance of encouraging the higher 
and more professional study of history, of establishing courses 
for the scientific training of students,' explained how c the 
Council of the Society took the matter up,' and insisted 
that c the connection of the Royal Historical Society with 
the movement has been in reality close throughout.' The 
result of much anxious work and of collecting subscriptions 
for the end in view was the establishment of c a lectureship 
in Palaeography, Diplomatics and Historical Sources,' to 
which one may add the information, which is not there 
found, that the lecturer appointed was — the society's own 
Director and Hon. Sec, Mr. Hubert Hall. 

If it should be said that by this appointment the society 
has signified its approval of the editing of the Liber Rubeus 

1 Compare here Ancestor, i. 193 note. 

2 Transactions, vol. xvi. pp. xviii-xxiii. 



one can only emphatically say 'so much the worse for the 
society/ But the qualification exacted of its Fellows is hardly 
such as would entitle them to express an opinion in the 

To return to Castle-guard. The paper I contributed on 
the subject to the Archaeological Journal had for its main 
object demonstration of the value for county history of pay- 
ments for castle-guard, which often enable us, when in doubt, 
to identify a manor and to trace its feudal descent. Recently, 
for instance, I have noted a payment to the castle-guard of 
Lancaster from Nether Broughton, Leicestershire. This place 
was not originally connected with Lancaster or its Honour, 
but, through its grant by Henry I. to Stephen, Count of 
Mortain, became so connected and is found about the mid- 
dle of the twelfth century in the hands of the Bussel family, 
barons of Penwortham, Lanes. That this place should owe 
guard to a castle so far distant is a further reminder of the 
folly of trying to locate in Kent places which happened to 
owe castle-guard to Dover. But indeed the adjacent county 
of Northampton supplies a striking instance in point. 
For Hartwell in that county provided two knights towards 
the guard of the no less distant fortress of Dover. 1 Need 
one add that the editor of the Red Book of the Exchequer 
places it without hesitation in Kent, although he can find in that 
county no place of the name ? This, however, is no obstacle, 
for he would doubtless claim it as one of those names which, as he 
somewhat obscurely observes, c do not always exist.' 2 In vain 
does Domesday enable us to explain the connection between 
Hartwell and Dover ; in vain did the historian of Northamp- 
tonshire, in the eighteenth century, record that Hartwell owed 
this service 3 ; c Advanced Historical Teaching ' has altered 
all that. 

In the name of those topographical studies with which the 
Ancestor concerns itself, I again call on the responsible authori- 
ties to withdraw promptly from circulation their edition of a 
work which the county historian is bound continually to use, 
and of which that edition, if he trusts it, will lead him into 
wanton error. 

1 See the Victoria History of Northamptonshire, i. 295. 

2 See p. 73 above. 

3 Bridges' Northamptonshire, i. 303. 





For the convenience of those who may have occasion to use the Red Book 
of the Exchequer in their historical work, I append a list of the principal criti- 
cisms and corrections I have as yet published on the official edition. 

6 The surrender of the Isle of Wight ' (Genealogical Magazine, i. I et 

' The Antiquity of Scutage ' (Studies cn the Red Book of the Exchequer, pp. 


4 The Red Book of the Exchequer 1 [general criticism] (ibid. pp. 1 7— 


* Alexander Swereford' [his authority] (ibid. pp. 67-91) 

' The Red Book of the Exchequer ' [genealogical criticism] (Genealogist 
[N.S.], xiv. 1-9) 

'The Inquest of Sheriffs ' (Commune of London, pp. 125-36) 
'The Coronation of Richard I.' (ibid. pp. 201—6) 
'The great inquest of service' [12 12] (ibid. pp. 261—77) 
' Castle-ward and cornage ' (ibid. pp. 278-88) 

* Family history from the public records ' (Ancestor, i, 251—2) 
' Castle-guard ' (Arch&ol. Journal, lix. 1 54—9) 

For a summary of the result of my criticisms see Mr. Poole's article in 
English Historical Reviezv, xiv. 148-50, where will be found the words : 1 The 
charges are very sweeping, but in my opinion they are made out.' 



Queen Mary (No. XXXVII) 

THE well known portrait of Queen Mary by Lucas de 
Here, which forms the frontispiece to this number of 
the Ancestor, is probably the largest signed work extant by 
this artist. It is a fine example of his painting, and, with the 
exception of an ill restored finger on one hand, is in perfect 
preservation. The colour scheme is gold, brown and rose. 
The dress, which has a large pattern painted in encrusted 
style, is of brown and gold brocade, while the rich fur on the 
sleeves is brown, and the background is of rose coloured 
velvet, showing the marks of folding. The face, small in 
proportion to the hands, is delicately treated, painted simply, 
with light shadows, the expression grave but not ungracious, 
an epitome of restrained power. Masterly too is the treat- 
ment of the hands, again painted in light tones, but expres- 
sive of nervous strength to an unusual degree. Queen Mary 
wore much jewellery ; on her fingers are no less than six rings, 
all set with black stones similar to those which ornament her 
dress. Two pendants also grace her gown ; on the side of 
one are traceable the words, c Dieu et mon droit/ and the 
other has the long pearl which is so frequently seen in her 
portraits fastened to it. In the left hand corner of the picture 
is de Here's signature, The Rev. Thomas Kerrich be- 

queathed it to the society in 1828, and there is an entry by 
Sir Frederick Madden in his Privy Purse Expences of the 
Princess Mary, p. clxxvi., which mentions it, and adds it was 
c bought by Mr. K. in 1800 from the collection of Mr. 
Smith of Boston, co. Lincoln. Reported to have been once 
at Kensington Palace/ 

Seventeen portraits of Mary, including the subject of this 
note, were shown at the Tudor exhibition in the New Gallery, 
three being by Lucas de Here and four (one a miniature) by 
Sir Antonio More. The large de Here was the well known 
'Hungad Petition,' and in it Mary wears what Mr. Scharf 




(who analyzed all her portraits carefully) calls the Spanish 
costume with fur trimmings. The other, which is only 8 in. by 
in. large, is the original of the full length portrait by 
Richard Burchett in the Princes' Chamber, House of Lords. 
A paper, delivered by Mr. Scharf at the Society of Antiquaries 
in 1876, describes the portrait of Princess Mary at the age 
of twenty-eight, now in the National Portrait Gallery, but 
formerly in the possession of the Brocas family of Beaure- 
paire, Hants. 

Ferdinand the Catholic, King of Spain (No. XXVII). 

The five portraits here reproduced belong to an interesting 
series of pictures bequeathed to the Society of Antiquaries by 
the Rev. Thomas Kerrich in 1828. It is not known how 
they came into his possession, beyond the date (1787) when 
he acquired them, but they are evidently all by one artist, 
painted for a specific purpose, and are practically unrestored. 
They are executed on oak panels of one piece with the frames, 
and these are identical throughout ; the pictures vary in size 
from about 12 in. by 7 in. to 14 in. by 8 J in. ; gilding is freely 
used on the dresses ; the patterns on the gilding are similar 
in style and the treatment of the hands is identical. Three 
of the five here shown, Francis I., Frederick of Denmark and 
the Sr. de Nassau, are probably contemporary portraits ; 
Charlemagne is evidently painted from life from a person 
supposed to resemble the Carlovingian hero, while Ferdinand 
the Catholic of Arragon is the only weak drawing of the set 
and therefore probably an imaginary portrait. On a com- 
parison of dates, and assuming the surmise concerning 
Ferdinand to be true, the artist must have painted these 
portraits after the year 1 5 1 5 and before 1538. The reason 
for this conclusion is obvious. Francis I. did not ascend the 
throne until 15 15, Frederick I. of Denmark did not reign in 
that kingdom until 1523, and the Sr. de Nassau did not re- 
ceive the order of the Golden Fleece until 1505 and died in 
1538. Against the theory that Ferdinand's portrait too was a 
contemporary work we would place the fact that he died in 
1 5 16 and is here represented as a very young man, and 
therefore to execute it from life the artist must have had an 
extremely long career, painting it possibly in 1462, when 

Ferdinand the Catholic, King of Spain. 



Ferdinand was twenty years of age, and the King of Denmark 
in 1523, at the instant when he ascended the throne, making 
an interval of sixty-one years between the two portraits. 
There is yet another reason founded on internal evidence 
alone. It is impossible to conceive that Ferdinand of Spain — 
he who first united the crowns of Arragon and Castile ; in 
whose reign America was discovered, the Inquisition estab- 
lished and the Jews expelled ; he who conquered the Moors 
and drove them out of Spain, who was a friend to France 
and a traitor to Naples ; he who overran Navarre and was 
grandfather to Charles V. — could have been this soft featured 
youth, with rounded cheek and gentle chin. The painting 
too, as we have said above, is inferior, and were it not for its 
association with an excellent series, its similarity of size and 
material, and the words jfernan&us blepanle res on the frame, it 
would, as a work of art, pass unnoticed. 



Francis I. of France (No. XXIX) 

This well painted portrait of the poet-king is remarkable 
in that it represents him as a youth with longish brown hair 
and beardless, instead of in the fashion he adopted later. His 
complexion is clear and bright, and, in spite of the abnormally- 
large nose, the effect on the spectator is of an engaging, hand- 
some man. His sister, Princess Margaret, wrote of his ap- 
pearance : — 

De sa beaute, il est blanc et vermeil, 

Les cheveux bruns, de grande et belle Taille, 

En Terre il est comme au ciel le soleil. 

It is not difficult to understand that he was fascinating, 
and that he was able to select his c petite bande des dames de la 
cour ' — c des plus belles parmi les plus belles.' The colours in 
this portrait are rich ; the blacks are fine in tone and the green 
background is dark yet brilliant. The crimson mantle partly 
conceals an underdress of gold, which again only partially hides 
a shirt bordered with gold. There is a gold fleur de lis en- 
riched with gems, and a golden cross attached to a golden collar 
which is formed of circlets and double fleur de lis. On the frame 
is written in a careless manner : FRAHCICVS I REX FRAMCORX. 

Francis I. of France. 

8 4 


Frederick I. King of Denmark (No. XXX) 

By the deposition of Christian II. the wars between 
Denmark and Sweden ceased, the Union of Calmar was dis- 
solved and Frederick, Duke of Schleswig Holstein, became 
King of Denmark, while the Swedes elected as their king 
Gustavus L, afterwards called the Great. Perhaps it is owing 
to the more predominating personality of his rival on the 
Scandinavian peninsula that little is recorded of Frederick I. 
of Denmark, and that his influence on the history of Europe 
was slight. During his reign the Lutheran leaven was working 
upheaval among the northern nations, and only three years 
after his death the Reformed Faith was established in his 
whilom kingdom. His appearance as shown in this picture 
was curious. He wore his red hair long and a remarkable line 
of hair under his cheek and chin. He had only faint sugges- 
tions of a moustache, his complexion was clear and eyes brown. 
He wears a golden mantle covered with a crimson pattern, and 
the whole is placed against a background of emerald green, evi- 
dently a favourite colour with the painter of this series. The 
frame is inscribed in black letters : — 


In consequence of the absence of any Christian name the 
subject of this portrait has been open to doubt, and Mr. Way 
calls it Christian III., who reigned from 1536 till 1559. Mr. 
Scharf however has removed all uncertainties concerning it, 
and has also conclusively proved another portrait (formerly in 
the Bernal collection) reputed to be Edward IV., to be also a 
portrait of Frederick of Denmark. This other picture is now 
at Clumber. 

Frederick I., King of Denmark. 



Charlemagne (No. XXXI) 

It is a curious speculation to wonder why this ugly grotesque 
though virile portrait became sanctified by the addition of a 
halo and dubbed the Great Emperor. Was this the ideal 
warrior of the sixteenth century ? It is unlike the wonderful 
epic Charlemagne of Dilrer, nor does it resemble the Charle- 
magne of the Lateran Mosaic, where St. Peter is handing him 
the banner of the city of Rome. Is it possible that the artist 
knew that seal of Charles the Great, where too he is represented 
ungainly with a large hook nose, and which might distantly 
recall this picture ? It is more likely that the painter, essaying 
to represent the hardy soldier type, held too closely to the living 
model before him, which, idealized, might have served for an 
image of the Great Sovereign, but when too truthfully copied 
became merely the remarkably lifelike portrait before us. The 
addition of a halo and the words 


on the frame were enough to give it an honoured position 
among the royal portraits in this series. 

Mr. Scharf in his catalogue raisonne says : 'This picture 
affords a valuable illustration of a curious entry in the cata- 
logue of pictures belonging to Charles I., taken probably in 
1635, published by Bathoe, from a transcript by Vertue, 1757. 
It runs thus : " No. 52. Item, a white hall piece. The 
twentieth being Carolus Magnus, in a furred cap, with a glory 
about his head." ' 




Sr. de Nassau (No. XXXII) 

This picture has again the bright green background which 
characterizes the portraits of Charlemagne and Frederick of 
Denmark. It is not in such a good state of preservation as 
these two ; there are small fissures observable on the face, 
which is as usual painted simply and in a light key. There 
was some difficulty in identifying the subject of this portrait, 
but Mr. Scharf follows the opinion of Mr. Way in deciding 
that it most probably represents Henry, Count of Nassau, 
Governor of Brabant and General of the Imperial forces, who 
was born in 1483 and created Knight of the Golden Fleece in 
1505. In the picture the badge is suspended from the upper 
edge of the brown dress. He lived both under Maximilian 
and Charles V., and died in 1534. On the frame is written 



Sr. de Nassau. 


THIS Yorkshire knight, or should we rather say this knight 
of Breda in Holland, as it was there he had the honour 
conferred on him by Charles II. while in exile, was the only 
son of Richard Jackson of Killingwoldgraves and Eske, in the 
parish of Bishop Burton, co. York, and Ursula, daughter of 
Richard Hildyard of Routh. Richard Jackson was son of 
Anthony Jackson by Margaret sister of Sir Martin Frobisher, 
one of Queen Elizabeth's celebrated admirals. 

He was born at Killingwoldgraves in the year 1599, or 
according to the inquest after his father's death was c aged ten 
years and eight months on the 3rd May James I. (16 10)/ 
According to Le Neve he was admitted to the Inner Temple 
in 1 61 6 and knighted at Breda in 1650. He was called to the 
Bar 1635, and was a Gentleman of the Privy Chamber to 
Charles I., by whom he was promised the place of Prothono- 
tary of the Common Pleas at Oxford in the year 1646. 

Sir Anthony Jackson appears to have acted as Herald in 
proclaiming Charles II. King of England on his entering Eng- 
land from Scotland in 165 1, or more probably at his coronation 
at Scone. He was taken prisoner at the battle of Worcester, 
and, having escaped with other prisoners, was retaken and 
committed a close prisoner to the Tower under an order of 
the Council of State dated 1 November, 1651. In the order 
he is described as Anthony Jackson alias Sir Anthony Jackson, 
and when ten days afterwards his wife obtained permission to 
visit him in the Tower, she is spoken of as Mrs. Jackson. 

He was kept at first a close prisoner, being accused of high 
treason for invading the nation with Charles Stuart, and for 
proclaiming him King of England, but he afterwards got the 
liberty of the Tower. 

He petitioned the Protector for release on giving security 
not to act prejudicially, stating that he was a servant only to 
the late king, but never in arms, and had only charity to sub- 
sist on. His petition, which bears the indorsement c Herald 
that proclaimed C[harles] S[tuart],' was referred to the Council 




to take fit security on 22 February, 1653-4. He was kept 
however a prisoner for a couple of years longer in the Tower, 
and on 5 February, 16 § $-6, he again petitioned the Protector 
for release on security for good conduct, alleging that other- 
wise he must perish for want, as his friends could no longer 
supply him. The certificate of the Lieutenant of the Tower 
accompanying the petition states that he has demeaned himself 
civilly, is retired and studious and very poor and fit to be re- 

Other entries in the state papers remove any doubts there 
may exist as to Sir Anthony Jackson being one of the Jacksons 
of Killingwoldgraves. From Richard St. George's pedigree of 
the family it appears that William Jackson (an uncle of An- 
thony and aged 14 in 1 6 1 3) married Martha, daughter of Frances 
Teringham of Weston. In the Calendar of the Committee for 
Compounding^ pt. iii. p. 93, there is under the date 24 October, 
1645, a reference to the case of Will Tyringham of Bucks (or 
Yorks), in which he states he had only ^100 a year and that 
the evidences relating to the property out of which this issued 
were some in the custody of Stanley, one of the County Com- 
mittee at Windsor, and others with Anthony Jackson of the 
Inner Temple. In the State Papers of the Commonwealth 
period there are two entries relating to permission being given 
to Anthony Jackson to be taken from the Tower to Westmin- 
ster Hall to appear as a witness on a trial between Sir Gerard 
Fleetwood and William Terringham. 

The petition of Sir Anthony Jackson to the Protector to be 
released from the Tower and the statement that c he must 
perish for want ' if not set at large show that his property had 
been dissipated in the cause of the Stuarts. Killingwoldgraves, 
Eske and other lands in the county of York were either con- 
fiscated or sold. In a petition to Charles II. he stated — 

that lie was Servant to the late King Charles I. that in the beginning of the 
wars he undertook and to his very great expense and daily hazard of his life, 
the transmission of intelligence and for the same in the year 1645 being betrayed 
by one Moore with great hardships got to Oxford where his Majesty was 
gracially pleased in signall of his favour for the services done to confer the place 
of a Gendeman of the Privy Chamber in Ordinary and soon after of a Prothono- 
tary — that according to order he attended on his Majesty's person during his 
restraint under the Scottish Army at Newcastle when being none beside the 
petitioner but Mr. Lovett whom his Majesty would confide in very great 
charges was committed to him all of which as in his letters to the Queen (to 
whom upon the Scots delivering him to the English the petitioner was with 


private instructions sent) he was pleased to signify petitioner in the exact 
Loyalty and diligence performed Since when petitioner attended your Majesty 
till being taken at Worcester he was committed to the Tower a close prisoner 
until 1658 and afterwards a prisoner on Baile All the time whereof he was 
under the menace of Capetation, of suffering death being charged with High 
Treason for proclaiming your Majesty King and his acting the office of one of 
the Masters of Requests at his examination which service before recited and 
the plunderings and imprisonments, suffered further having so utterly wasted 
his fortunes as he hath not wherewith to maintain either liberty or substance 
and he prays to be restored to these offices afforesaid. 

For years of anxiety and suffering and for his loyalty to his 
king the only return Sir Anthony Jackson received after his 
petition was an order from Charles II. on the Treasury to give 
him the paltry sum of £50; and the closing scene of a chequered 
career takes place when he is laid to rest in the old Temple 
Church of London on 14 October, 1666. 

According to Richard St. George's Visitation, Sir Anthony 
Jackson had three sisters, Frances, Elizabeth and Jane, but we 
know little or nothing of his domestic life, nor have we any 
knowledge of his wife's name or family, the date of her death 
or whether they left any children to perpetuate their name. 
As the family of Greer who are connected by marriage with 
the Irish Quaker families of Jackson claim descent from the 
Killingwoldgraves Jacksons and Hildyards it would be inter- 
esting to know authentically if this Yorkshire knight left any 
male issue. 1 

The arms as given in the Visitation and confirmed 1 6 June, 
1 613, to Richard Jackson were gules two dances ermine and a 
chief ermine with three golden suns thereon. 

Sir Martin Frobisher in his will dated c Fowreth daye of 
Auguste in the sixe and thirtie yeare of the raygne of our 
Soveraigne Ladie queene Elizabethe,' makes mention of the 
relationship existing between the families of Frobisher and 


1 In the Modern Visitation of Ireland, edited by the late Dr. Joseph Jackson 
Howard and Mr. F. A. Crisp (i. 9), the Greer claim to this descent is thus 
shown : Thomas Greer married in 1787 ' Elizabeth, dau. of William Jackson 
of Edenderry, King's County, lineal descendant of Richard Jackson of Kil- 
lingwold Grove, co. York.' 

9 2 



IN the first number of the Ancestor was given an instalment 
of extracts from the Appendices to the Reports of the 
Royal Commission on Historical MSS. Those which follow 
will further illustrate the value of the information they con- 
tain on family history, often supplying, as they do, missing 
dates of marriage or of death, and supplementing these at 
times with a wealth of illustrative anecdote and gossip. Even 
those who are but slightly interested in genealogical study 
can hardly fail to appreciate the vivid and contemporary 
glimpses we are thus enabled to obtain of the social life of 
our forefathers. 

J. H. R. 


[Newsletter Gossip] 

i666[~7], 29 Jan. — This morning the Earl of Rochester was 
married to Mrs. Mallet, Lord Hawley's grandchild, to whom Lord 
John Butler had for some time made his addresses. 2 

1666-7, 7 March. — Lord Vaughan, eldest son of the Earl of 
Carbery, is dead without issue. 3 

1666-7, ID March. — Lady Honora O'Brien, relict of Sir Francis 
Inglefield, has petitioned the King for relief from the ill usage of her 
husband, Sir Robert Howard, son of the Earl of Berkshire. 18th, 
The Duke of Richmond is to marry Mrs. Stewart after Easter. The 
King has given him leave to enlarge his lodging upon the water side 
in the Bowling Green in Whitehall. 

1667, 2 April. — Mrs. Stewart, now the Duchess of Richmond, 
continued at Whitehall till yesterday morning, when the King first 
learned that she was married, and then she immediately returned to 
Somerset House. The Duke is at Dover Castle. In his absence she 
refuses all visits, and seeks to make her peace at Court. 

1 From the 7th Appendix to the 12 th Report. 

2 The actual date of this marriage appears to have been hitherto un- 
known. The earl's attempt to carry off this heiress by force and his committal 
to the Tower made a great sensation. 

3 Date not in Complete Peerage. 



1667, 3 April. — The Marquess of Worcester died suddenly last 
night at Worcester House. 

1667, 22 April. — Last night is memorable for the Duchess of 
Newcastle's first appearance at Court. She came in the evening at- 
tended with three coaches, the first of her gentlemen, of two horses, 
the second her own, of six, and the third that of her women, of four. 
Her train was carried by a young lady in white satin. Her first visit 
was to the King, whp sent the Lord Chamberlain to conduct her to 
the Queen, where his Majesty came to her. This visit is thought 

1667, 25 April. — Last night the Duchess of Newcastle visited 
the Duchess of York in the same equipage in which she visited the 

1667, 24 May. — Tuesday next is appointed for the marriage of 
Lady Isabella Keith and Sir Edward Turner's son. 

1667, 28 May, London. — William Dugdale, Norroy, to D. 
Fleming. I have resolved to perfect my collection of materials for an 
historical work on the Baronagium Angliee^ being every day at the 
Tower little less than twelve hours for that purpose. I pray you to 
help me to what you can in reference to the Barons of Egremont, or 
others in those northern parts, within a year or two, but what you do 
therein must be from the authority of old manuscripts and original 
charters which I may vouch, for I resolve to quote authority for what- 
soever I say therein ... I lodge at Mr. Ashmole's chamber in the 
Middle Temple, and am like to do so until our office is rebuilt. The 
Duke of York's younger son, called Earl 1 of Kendal, died on Wednesday 
last. The Lord Treasurer's funeral will be about a month hence. 
His body is to be carried to Titchfield near Southampton. The Earl 
of Lincoln died last week at his house, not far from Charing Cross. 

1667, 27 June. — The marriage of Lady Isabella Keith and Sir 
Edward Turner's son was consummated last night. 

1667, 23 July. — The Earls of Mulgrave 2 and Rochester, 3 though 
under age, are to be called into the House of Peers this session. 

1667, 2 Aug. — Yesterday the Earl of Manchester and the Countess 
of Carlisle were privately married. 4 It is owned by them to-day. 

1667, 9 Aug. — The Countess of Clarendon died last night at St. 
James's. 12th, Sir H. Bellasis died of his wounds yesterday morning. 
Mr. T. Porter has fled. 13th, It was found on examination that the 
sword had never pierced the body of Sir H. Bellasis. 

1667, 15 Aug. — Lady Anne Knollys, daughter of the Earl of 
Banbury, is missing from her grandmother's, the Countess of Portland 

1 ' Duke ' according to the Complete Peerage. 

2 He was not yet 20 years old. 

3 He also appears to have been only 19. 

4 Date not in the Complete Peerage. 




at Newport House, having, it is believed, been conveyed thence by a 
young gentleman of Dorsetshire named Fry. 17th, The young 
gentleman who carried away Lady Anne Knollys was lately page to 
the Duke of Buckingham. 19th, Lady Anne Knollys was immedi- 
ately married to Mr. Fry at Knightsbridge. 

1667, 29 Aug. — To-day or to-morrow Sir Greville Verney will 
marry Lady Diana Russell. 

1667, 12 Oct. — The Governor and Council of Virginia have 
made complaint of Lord Baltimore, as usurping the title of an absolute 

1667, 12 Dec. — The Earl of Burlington in marrying his second 
daughter to the second son of the Lord Chancellor [Clarendon], had 
Clarendon House tied to him for 14,000/. in lieu of a jointure for the 
young lady. This not having been paid he has taken possession of the 

i667[-8], 7 Feb. — A committee is appointed by the King to con- 
sider the ways of preventing the frequent mischiefs of duelling. 

i667[-8], 17 March. — The Earl of Shrewsbury died yesterday at 
Arundel House, where he has remained all this while [since his duel]. 

1668, 4 June. — Lord Brudenel's marriage with Lady [Frances] 
Savile, eldest sister of the Earl of Sussex, was perfected last week, 1 
but it will not be consummated for five months for particular reasons. 

1668, 18 Aug. — Mr. Henry Howard, nephew to the Earl of 
Carlisle, was lately killed in a duel by Mr. Curwen, a gentleman of 
the North. 

i668[-9], 5 March. — The Duchess Dudley, who lately died aged 
almost an hundred years, has, to crown all the charities of her life, 
given great legacies to pious uses. Her body is exposed in state at her 
house in St. Giles in the Fields. 

1 668 [-9], 11 March. — On Tuesday night there was a quarrel be- 
tween the Duke of Richmond and Mr. James Hamilton, after they 
had well dined at the Tower with Sir Henry Savile. They had 
chosen their seconds, but the Lord General sent for the principals, 
and put them on their honours not to prosecute it. The Earl of 
Rochester was one of the party, who, upon his disgrace at Court, 
intends to go to France for some time. 16th, The corpse of the late 
Duchess Dudley was this morning carried out of town in a stately 
hearse attended with a numerous train of coaches. 

1669, 7 June. — It is now become a less secret that Colonel Talbot, 
of the Duke of York's Bedchamber, is married to Mrs. Boynton, one 
of her Majesty's Maids of Honour. 

1669, 9 June. — Some days since, the Countess of Portland, for- 
merly Countess of Newport, died in town, 2 and her house, called New- 

1 No date is given for this marriage in the Complete Peerage. 

2 Her death is given as ' about 1 669 ' in the Complete Peerage. 



port House, was immediately seized by Mr. Fry who had married 
Lady Anne Knollys. Her body was privately buried at Somerset 

1669, 7 Sept. — Sir Edward Bathurst and Sir William Drax, two 
famous aldermen, died last night. 

1669, 16 Sept. — The bodies of Sir Edward Filmer and Lady 
Lexington, 1 who died lately at Paris, having been embalmed, are being 
brought over for burial. 

i669[-7o], 4 Jan. — The marriage between Lord Torrington, son 
of the Duke of Albemarle, and the daughter of Lord Ogle, was on 
Thursday solemnized in the Cock-pit, but the joy thereof was much 
lessened by the illness of the General. 

i669[— 70], 25 Jan. — On Saturday last Lord Dunkellin, eldest 
son of the Earl of Clanricarde, was privately married to the Court 
beauty, the youngest daughter of Mr. Bagnall. 2 It has abundantly 
furnished the Court and city with discourse, but has not at all pleased 
their Majesties, who have suspended both the Bagnalls, father and 
son, from their attendance at Court. 

1 669^70], 14 March. — Lord Ros, eldest son of the Earl of Rut- 
land, presses for a divorce and for liberty to remarry, 3 urging the 
precedent of the Marquess of Northampton in the time of Edward VI. 
All the Bishops oppose his liberty, except the Bishop of Durham. 

1670, 26 Nov. — London. William Dugdale to [D. F.] c Being 
very desirous that you should see a specimen of my historicall worke 
of the Baronage I have herewith sent you what I have done — cheifly 
from our publique Records — for the family of Clifford, whereby you 
will descerne what course I take in all others ; which is to represent 
the matter of fact as briefly and plainly as well may be. Something 
also I shall add in the latter part thereof but for breif send you this, 
to the end I may have your judgment thereof, and that you may shew 
it to the noble lady at Appleby, and from her collections impart to me 
what more may be usefull for the farther illustration of the story of 
her noble ancestours, intreating you to present my most humble duty 
and service to her.' 

1670, 20 Dec. — 1 6th, On Wednesday the body of Mr. Stanley 
late Cornet of the Guards was accompanied out of Town, for inter- 
ment at Lathom in Lancashire, by several Brigades and Companies of 
Horse and Foot Guards, and a numerous train of coaches of the 
Nobility. There has been a report that Mr. Loveing has been lost 
at sea on his way to Denmark. A duel between two of the Prince 
of Orange's train has taken place in Tothill Fields. 1 7th, Last night 
Lady Halifax died in her house in Lincoln's Inn Fields. 

1 No date is given for her death in the Complete Peerage. 

2 No date is given for this marriage in the Complete Peerage. 

3 Compare Complete Peerage, vi. 467. 

9 6 


167 1, 23 March. — The Proclamation intended to issue for the 
apprehension of those who stole away Mrs. Darcy, a young gentle- 
woman of a great estate, but deaf and dumb, is to be stopped, she 
having been found yesterday, but married. 

1 67 1, 8 April. — We hear from Florence of the sudden death of 
Mr. Thomas Clifford, son of Sir Thomas, Treasurer of the Household. 

167 1, 5 June. — From Leghorn we hear that Mr. Clifford's corpse 
was met by all the English living in the factory, twelve miles out of 
town, and accompanied from Florence by Sir John Fruer, Sir Bernard 
Gascoigne, 1 and divers others, and passed directly through the city to 
the water side in due order becoming the occasion, 35 great boats at- 
tending them to the Centurion, where the great cabin was hung with 
black. The English ships in the port fired at least 300 great guns. 

1 67 1, 14 July. — London. W. Dugdale to [D. F.] 

I thank you for the papers, especially for the passages of the later 
times wherein I was very deficient. Had looked only superficially 
over the epitome written by the Lord Chief Baron Hales, and shown 
to me by Lord Hutton who had borrowed it for the purpose of the 
Lady at Thanet House, because it gives in many places no authorities. 
My own information about the Viponts is much fuller than that in 
the said document. * I wish I could see some authority for what he 
mentions of that grant of the younger daughter and her husband — 
Leiburns — of the Shireevewick of Westmorland unto Robert de 
Clifford the heire of the elder daughter — by the King's licence as he 
says. Out of that copy of the life of Henry, Lord Clifford who was 
constrayned to live under the disguise of a shepherd, as also from that 
of George Earl of Cumberland, and the noble Lady now living, I 
have extracted what I thought fittest, and have cast it into my own 
mould ; for I intend my whole worke shall be all of one web.' 

167 1, 30 Sept. — Last week Mr. Overton who some time since 
stole away Mrs. Ann Darcy, the deaf and dumb lady, came with four 
companions to the house of Mr. Barnes who married her sister, and 
with whom she had been staying for some time, and sought to force 
his way in. He was resisted and was followed by Mr. Barnes and 
some friends towards Warwick, arrested and brought before the magis- 
trates there, and committed to prison. 

i672[~3], 23 March. — Sir W. Dugdale to D. Fleming. 

i As to his other question, grounded upon one of his ancestours 
sitting in Parliament, it is soon answered ; viz. that there is no hopes 
of any advantage to him thereby, had it been upon a reall summons. 
At that time when this letter was sent to the Pope declaring King 
Edward I. right to the superiority of dominion in the realme of Scot- 

1 This was the knight of that name who was condemned to die by 
Fairfax's court-martial on the surrender of Colchester (1648), but reprieved 
at the last moment. 



land, 1 and before ; those who were tenants to the King by military 
service, and then called Barones minores, did come to Parliament. But 
after that none but those as were summoned by speciall writt. Nor 
of those who were so summoned by writt did, or could their posterity 
for some ages, clayme by right to sitt there, if the King did decline 
to summon them. 

Sir, I humbly crave your pardon for this my boldnesse with you. 
My necessary being in London at some times doth much retard that 
publique worke of the Baronage wherewith I am in hand ; yet I hope 
in Trinity Terme next to be ready for the presse with my first volume, 
which — as I have intimated to you — will consist of those who had 
their rise by tenure ; those by summons beginning in King Edward's 

1673, 25 March. — A duel between the Earl of Rochester and 
Lord Dunbar has been prevented by the timely intervention of the 
Earl Marshal. 

I ^73> 3° July. — Yesterday morning was the trial at the King's 
Bench Bar of Mr. Ayne of the Guards, for having killed the Countess 
of Shrewsbury's coachman in an accidental quarrel near the Court 
gate. The Duke of Ormond, as steward of the House, sat as judge, 2 
assisted by Judge Littleton. 2 The jury acquitted him. 

1674-5, 9 Feb. — 8th, His Majesty has granted the dignity of a 
Baronet of England, and a coat of arms, to Cornelius Martinus Tromp, 
Lieutenant Admiral of Holland, and to the heirs male of his body, 
failing such, to his brother, Harper Martin Trompe, Burgomaster of 
Delft, and his heirs male, and after that to his brother Adrian Martip 
Tromp, Captain in the Prince of Orange's regiment, and his heirs male. 

1675, 31 Aug. — On Saturday last a quarrel upon some light 
occasion arose at the Duke's play-house between Sir Thomas Armstrong 
and one Mr. Scroope. They both drew and the latter was killed upon 
the place. All excuse Sir Thomas, as Mr. Scroope gave the provoca- 
tion and drew first. 

1675, 14 Dec. — The King has in Council ordered that the young 
Lord Courcy, 3 hitherto brought up in the Romish religion, should be 
demanded of Sir Edward Scot, and sent to the Dean of Christ Church, 
Oxford, to be educated. 

i675[-6], 23 Feb. — Richard Duckett to D. F. Your cousin 
Jane Crossland is married to Sir Walter Vavasour's eldest son,* the best 
Catholic match in Yorkshire. 

1 This is the baron's letter to the Pope, which is illustrated in the present 

2 Compare the Introduction (pp. xii., xv.) to The Household Book, by W. A. 
Lindsay, K.C. (Windsor Herald). 

3 Almeric (sue. 1 669), generally known afterwards as Lord Kingsale. 

4 This is a somewhat puzzling statement, as in the Compete Baronetage 

9 8 


1676, 20 Nov. — Lord Mohun, second to Lord Cavendish, in a 
duel with Lord Power, has been mortally wounded. 

[16] 80, 12 and 19 May — D. Fleming to Lady Middleton, at 
Leigh ton. Advising her, as he has already advised another rich widow, 
his cousin Curwen of Workington, to marry a Protestant who will 
protect and convert her. Copy. 

1680, 3 Aug. Leighton. — Anne, Lady Middleton, to D. F. I 
am much troubled at my sister marrying Mr. George Leyborne. I do 
not like her example so well that I shall follow it. I think that in 
that particular you speak out of drollery. 

1682, 3 June. Heralds' College, London. — Sir William Dugdale 
to Sir D. F. There is no memorial in the office of Sir John Ballantine's 
knighthood. He is one among others, whose names are on a list, 
i who assume that title, but never received that honour from this king. 
We have also a note of a greater number which do take upon them 
the title of Baronets, who had warrants from the late King to pass 
patents for that title, but did not proceed any farther therein.' Knights 
made by a Commissioner are of the same standing as those made by 
the King himself. 

1682, 17 Nov. London. — Sir William Dugdale to Sir D. F. 
We have no record particularly of Knights Banneret. 1 They have 
been very ancient, as is to be seen in the Rolls of the Tower here and 
there upon occasion, and as to the Knights of the Bath you must 
know that all who were made knights were antiently bathed. But I 
presume you meant such as have been made at the Coronations of 
Kings or creating of the Prince of Wales. I think it were not amiss 
that a catalogue of such and of other knights were printed, but my 
fellows in this office do utterly oppose it. Had it not been for me the 
catalogue of Baronets would not have been printed, which I was con- 
strayned to press, in regard that divers persons who never passed 
patents for that honour, did assume the title of Baronet.' 

1682, 16 Dec. — Sir Christopher Musgrave to Sir D. F. My 
father did wisely in declining a warrant for a Barony. Acceptance 
would have ruined the family. I have not so vain a thought about me. 

1687, 28 July. — Hutton. Henry Fletcher to Sir D. F. Lord 
Coleraine has got a good woman 1 and a good fortune for his son, 
which I heard him say would be worth to him 30,000/. Her father's 
name is Carleton, a merchant in London, that my father has bound 
my brother Thomas to for eight years. My brother is gone to Ham- 
burgh, and is to stay there most of his time. My father gives with 
him 300/. 

this ' eldest son ' is described as ' only surviving son and heir of his father Sir 
Walter, when he succeeded him in 1670 ?' No date is there given for his 
marriage to Jane Crosland (whose mother was a Fleming). 
1 Lydia, daughter of Mathew Carlton. 




[Marriage of the first Duke of Devonshire to the Duke of 
Ormonde's Daughter] 

Colonel Edward Cooke to [Lord Bruce] 

1662, 13 Sept. Dublin. — My Lord Francis arrived here last Sun- 
day and is well but thin ; Lord Ossory as worthy an honest general 
as lives, and my Lord John comes on apace, very diligent at the head 
of his company, and Lady Mary improves strangely in stature and 
beauty. Really my Lord Cavendish enjoys his share also in sobriety, 
and I do absolutely believe there is true love on both sides. We shall 
ere long go into the country on purpose to marry privately, which 
upon very good grounds I have hastened on as quickly as I can. 

Colonel E[dward] C[ooke] to the Countess Dowager of 


1662, 26 Oct. Dunmore. — A short letter on a wedding day, from 
a person of consequence for carrying on the duties of the day may well 
be owned for a great obligation. In the marriage itself we anticipated 
the intended spectators by despatching it before their appearance, but 
soon after the inundation broke in upon us ; and as much as hath yet 
passed in all my experience of all English weddings, I never saw parts 
so universally well acted. My Lord Cavendish indeed hath not his 
new wardrobe yet come (though we hear it is landed), but his extra- 
ordinary personage and behaviour did so set of his but ordinary apparel, 
that he made a complete bridegroom for the occasion. My Lord Duke 
hath from first to last evidenced a great deal of satisfaction in this day's 
work, and let down himself from his Lord-Lieutenancy, to be only 
the bride's father and to direct obligations and welcomes to all the 
guests. And then for the incomparable creature, my Lady Mary, she 
is a mere little bundle of great goodness, sweetness, and modesty, and 
really that your Ladyship may partake with me in my abundant satis- 
faction in my Lord Cavendish this day's behaviour was not only his 
master-piece, but might be a pattern to all great bridegrooms in the 

[Colonel Edward Cooke to Lord Bruce] 

1662, 12 Nov. — 'On Monday was the wedding day, which was 
kept with all the jollity such an occasion was capable of, and all cere- 
monies due to it. I was removed from the lower to the upper end of 
the table as representing the bridegroom's relations ; whilst he hand- 
somely and confidently waited. Really he acquitted himself admirably 
well in all circumstances, and she with the greatest goodness and 
modesty, that everybody was almost the bridegroom's rival, not 

1 From the 7th Appendix to the 15 th Report. 



forbearing to be in love with his bride. The whole day was danced 
away and the night too, till the bride was in and her groom ready to 
go into bed, which done in all due decorum, and the door shut, (the 
company much exceeding the bedroom) dice boxes and cards walked 
below, whilst my Lord and all us of the soberer sort walked up to bed. 
Now I have given your Lordship an account of the goodness of the 
country and the activity of its governor who was always first out 
and last in, and rode as hard as the hardest, I must complain of the 
bad inhabitants of this good country. A generation of people scarce 
one remove from savages, if not in the same form of brutality, their 
houses are like hog-styes, and so they are where the absolute . . . 
and they themselves swine-like in all things but shape, their habits are 
swine-like, all live and lie together without any distinction of ages or 
sex, their houses are not to be gone but grope into, they making their 
doors as low and little as they can, and their ceilings thatch as low as 
a man's head.' 

Sale of Sir Peter Lely's Pictures, 18 April, 1682 

Master's Xamc 

j 1 Name of Picture 

J Measures 



j High 


j ft. 







1 The Family of Endymion 



! 5 


Earl of Mulgrave . 



; Another Family of Seven 









j The Earl of Strafford and 

Two Sisters .... 







! Lady Thimbleby and Sis- 

ter with a Cupid 







| Mrs. Kirk, a whole length 








| Duchess of Richmond, a 

whole length . . . 








I The Countess of Middle- 

j sex, a whole length. 








: The Countess of Carlisle 

Van Dyck I 

and a Child .... 








The Countess of Sunder- 









I Tho. Killegrew with a 





Lord Newport . 




j Mr. Mallory .... 








i Sir Walter Pye .... 








! The Lady Pye . . . . 





2 7 



J Mr. Taverner .... 





Jac. Van Hornbecke 




[ The Countess of Carnarvon 








| The Countess of Newport 








Sir Arthur Hopkins in an • 

1 Oval ; 






j Lady Hopton . j 



I ] 





1 Lady Tufton . . . . ! 



I 3 




Countess of Newport . . 1 








j King Charles the First 






I Marquis of Huntley . . : 



I ] 






The Countess Dowager of Devonshire to [Lord Bruce] 

1663, 21 Aug. Roehampton. — 4 We have a report here Mr. 
Montague shall marry my Lady Anne Digby. I conceive it proceeds 
from the entire friendship betwixt my Lady Anne Digby and my 
Lady Harvey. Mr. Griffin is a very earnest suitor to Mrs. Steward. 
I do not hear she is inclined to marry. My Lord Duke of Bucking- 
ham, who is her very great friend, dissuades her from any fortune that 
is not very great.' 

Lord Bruce to the Earl of Ailesbury 

i704[-05], 6 March. London. — There is a thing I am now at 
liberty to acquaint you with, which for some reasons was not allowed 
me till now, by the post. It is a treaty of marriage with my Lady 
Ann Saville which is so far advanced that everything is agreed upon, 
and my Lord Nottingham did me the honour to carry me on Sunday 
to wait on the old Lady Halifax, and yesterday to the young Lady 
Halifax, his daughter, and my Lady Ann Saville who lives with her. 
This matter being now so near a conclusion I hope it may appear to 
your Lordship a proper time for my sister's coming over since I shall 
now be in a condition to receive her. 


1730-31, 15 Jan. Dublin. — I can send you nothing from this 
place but a long train of unlucky disasters which have lately happened 
in the provinces. The only brother of Sir Laurence Esmond had 
married by stealth a daughter of Colonel Butcher of Killcash. Father 
and son had only just been reconciled, when the lady's brother, visit- 
ing her and fiddling with a gun in the parlour, by accident shot 
Mr. Esmond in the leg, and no surgeon being near the wound morti- 
fied and he died. About the same time two young ladies, Miss 
Hawley and Miss Burford, while taking the air in a four-wheeled 
chaise, the driver having got down to fasten the lintspin of a wheel, 
the horses took head and ran into the river, overturned the chaise and 
both ladies were drowned. This happened in the county of Kilkenny 
near Lord Hoath's 2 hunting seat. Miss Burford lived in his family 
and the other lady was there on a visit. Lord Hoath married the 
daughter of General [G(e)orges], his only brother Harry St. Laurence 
spending his Christmas at Killbrew, Mr. Georges' seat in the county 
of Meath, when the account came of this disaster, Mr. Hamilton 
Georges, brother of the gentleman of the house, said he heartily 
pitied his sister Lady Hoath who had lost so amiable a companion 
as Miss Burford, he knew not what she would do for company 
having nobody but that silly Miss Rice. St. Laurence, who was 

1 From the 7th Appendix to the 15th Report. 2 Howth. 



uncle to this young lady and excessively fond of her, resented her 
being called silly ; whereupon a quarrel ensued and after they had 
gone to bed Mr. Georges went to St. Laurence's chamber to ask his 
pardon when St. Laurence bounced out of bed and went to his pistols 
and bid Georges to take one, which he declined, and declared if they 
must fight, it were better in the morning but St. Laurence swore if 
he hesitated any longer he would shoot him through the head. Georges 
took a pistol and fired both balls hitting St. Laurence who lived a few 
days after, happily for Georges, as there was no third person in the 
room. The Lord Chief Justice has given Georges bail. 

1743, 6 Dec. Near Charleville. — A nephew of Col. Massey's 
has carried off Miss Ingoldsby, a lady of 1,200//. a year, and gone 
with her to France. A reward of 300/i. a piece for taking of him 
and his associates is offered by the Government. 

Memorial of Edmund Spencer to the Duke of Marlborough 

[1748, Nov.]. — That the memorialist is great-grandson of Edmund 
Spenser, the poet, 1 to whom Queen Elizabeth for his writings and ser- 
vices granted certain lands in Ireland. That William III. granted 
other lands in Ireland to William Spencer, memorialist's grandfather, 
for services to the Crown, particularly at the battle of Aghrim. That 
the said lands descended to Nathaniel Spencer, memorialist's father, 
who mortgaged them for large sums, and soon after died, leaving 
memorialist, an infant of tender years, to the care of a guardian, who 
converted the income of the lands to his own use, and died insolvent 
in memorialist's minority. That memorialist's estates have been since 
told for payment of his father's debts, and the memorialist is reduced 
so very low circumstances. — Copy, 

1 A generation is obviously omitted here. William Spencer was the 
poet's grandson, being the son of Sylvanus Spencer. 

{The above extracts have been made with the permission accorded to the 
Ancestor by the Controller of His Majesty 9 5 Stationery Office.] 


AMONG the Harley MSS. of the British Museum 
(No. 3669) is a remarkably interesting chartulary per- 
taining to the chantries of the parish church of Crich, Derby- 
shire. It affords by far the fullest particulars of any mere 
parochial chantries now extant, and is in other ways of ex- 
ceptional character, particularly in the information it affords 
of the once famous Derbyshire family of Wakebridge. It has 
not hitherto attracted the attention it deserves. 1 

This register or chartulary consists of 106 folios, and was evi- 
dently purchased for use at the time of the foundation of the first 
chantry, circa 1350. When the inventories of the two chantries 
were taken in 1368 this book is entered as pertaining to the 
first chantry — Registrum cantarie. From its contents it is ob- 
vious that it remained in the custody of the chantry priest of 
St. Nicholas and St. Katharine until the days of Edward VI. 
Nor was the book treated merely as a register wherein to 
transcribe copies of the endowment charters of the first and 
second chantries, for it was also used as a convenient place 
wherein to record parochial agreements relative to the church 
made a century before the founding of the first chantry, as 
well as various other matters relative to the chantries and the 
parish of much later date. 

As a varied local record of this description is almost 
unique, it may be of some value to chronicle the general con- 
tents of this register, and in certain parts to cite largely from 
its pages, more especially as it throws considerable light on the 
social and religious condition of our ancestors in a retired 
Derbyshire village immediately after the awful visitation of the 
Black Death. 

The register opens with the writs and inquisitions of / 
Edward III. relative to the first chantry done into English by 

1 A fairly long account of a good deal of its contents was given in my 
Churches of Derbyshire, \\\. 35-46 (1879). Certain parts of this chartulary 
were transcribed by Adam Wolley, the Matlock antiquary, and are to be 
found in Add. MSS. 6669, ff. 1-1 1. 



a later hand, whereby the king was satisfied that Sir William 
Wakebridge had freehold land in Crich to the annual value of 
£10 over and above that which he proposed in each instance 
to alienate c unto a chapelayne to singe for the sowles of his 
predecessors at Chriche. ' The messuages, lands, cottages and 
rents appropriated to the chantries were situated at Crich and 
its hamlets of Wakebridge, Wheatcroft, Plaistow, Fritchley, 
Tansley and Holloway ; at the adjacent hamlets of Dethick, 
Lea, Alveley and Harston ; at Hassop in Bakewell parish, and 
at Teversall in Nottinghamshire. 

To obtain the royal sanction for the alienation of all this 
property the founder made two separate applications in 1350. 
The writ for the first half was addressed to John Waleys, 
escheator for Derbyshire, on 20 April, and the licence was 
obtained on 3 July. In the following month, namely on 
10 August, a further writ ad quod damnum was issued to 
Walter Montgomery, who was then the county escheator, as 
to the alienation of the remainder of the foundation property, 
and licence was granted on 3 December. 

Various reservations or rent charges were retained on the 
chantry property. They were quaintiy enumerated as follows 
in the English version : — 

Imprimis one halpenye was reserved to the Heyeres of Hugh Gurneye for 
the mansion in Chriche as hit dothe appeare by the dede. Item one halfepenye 
was reserved to the heyres of Heugh de Londeforth for the same as hit doth 
appere bye the deede, w ch rent is not nowe to be payed for that, neyther of 
the grauntours hathe anye Heyres. Lykewyse fyve shyllinges are to be payed 
to the prior of Felley for the tenement w c h was Thomas Eyres of Chriche, 
and thre shyllinges and fowre pence are dewe to the same prior for the tene- 
ment w ch the sayde Thomas dyd hold in furtesleye and six pence are dewe to 
the chyrch of Chriche for the tenements in Chriche by the graunt of Adam 
Eyre. Lykewise one penye -is dewe to the Heyres of Wylliam Kenerdsaye 
lord of the Lee for one tenement w c he is in the handes of Simon Whetcrofte. 
Lykewyse one halfepenye is dew to the light in the Church of Chriche for all 
other tenements in Whetcrofte w ch were Alexander Lees. Lykewyse a payre 
of gylden spores or six pence in moneye are dew to the lord of Chriche for to 
plow lande at Stricthorne, wyche were Henrye Codinton. Lykewyse one apte 
is dewe to Richard Clarcke for one mesuage and toe acres of lande the w ch Ihon 
of Chestershire dyd purchase of Alexander de Lee. Lykewise one halfepenye 
is dewe to W m of Kenardsaye for three acres of land the w che the sayde Ihon of 
Chestershire dyd purchase of Thomas de Ferarius. And one halfepenye is to 
be payed to the light of Sainct Iohn of Dethecke for one plot of land in the 
Lee w c h is called Hannefelde. Lykewise one pounde of cumine is dew to the 
lord of Chriche and grindinge of a eleven busshelles of come is dew to the 
chapellaynes in the Lee for that halfe part of the milne w ch were Thomas 


Ferrars. Lykewyse to shyllinges are dewe to the heyres of Alexander Lee 
except a releas may be had, and that is to be sought of Iohn of Dethecke and 
the grinding of an eleven bushell is dew to the chappelaynes of the Lee for that 
halfe of the milnes w ch were Alexander Lees, and one penye halfepenye is dew 
to the lord of Tutburye, for the enlarginge of the damme of the lower Mylne 
of the Lee. Lykewyse six shillinges are to be payed to the prior of Felleye for 
one plowe land in Clattercotes. Lykewyse one halfepenye is dew to Richard 
Clarke for all the tenementes the wych Peter of Wakebrugge the father of the 
founder dyd purchase of Godfraye Holewayes chapelayne in Alveleye, and the 
w ch the same Godfraye dyd purchase of Alexander Lee. 

To this early sixteenth century English succeeds, after a 
calendar that covers six folios, the chartulary proper, wherein 
are set forth at length transcripts of the various Latin docu- 
ments pertaining to the endowment, and the establishment of 
the chantry. It was dedicated conjointly to Sts. Nicholas, 
Katharine, Margaret and Mary Magdalene, though usually 
known by only the first two of these names. It was ordained 
that there should be daily mass for the souls of the founder 
and his two wives, Joan who died in 1349, and Elizabeth whom 
he married in 1350, and who survived him ; for his grand- 
father, Nicholas de Wakebridge, and his wife Julia, their son 
Nicholas and their daughters Sarah, Joan and Amy, uncle and 
aunts of the founder ; for his father and mother, Peter and 
Joan de Wakebridge, and their children, Robert, Nicholas, 
Peter, John (chaplain), Matilda, Joan and Margaret, the 
brothers and sisters of the founder, who all died childless ; for 
William Cosyne and Eleanor his wife, and their children, John, 
Cecilia and Alice ; for the founder's surviving sister Cecilia, 
and her husband John de la Pole ; for Henry de Codington, 
Margaret his wife, and their parents ; for Roger de Chesterfield, 
clerk ; for Henry, Nicholas and Geoffrey de Chaddesden, and 
Nicholas de Tissington ; for William de Balidon, vicar of Crich ; 
for Sir Roger Beler, lord of Crich, Margaret his wife, and 
Alice Beler, daughter of Thomas Beler, their niece ; for Cecily 
Wyn ; and for Ralph Frecheville and his heirs. The chaplain 
was to assist the vicar on double festivals, on Sundays, and 
on the feasts of Sts. Katharine and Margaret. He was to 
provide a wax taper for use in the chancel ; to say full ser- 
vice for the departed on St. Katharine's day, and to offer $d. 
on the morrow ; and to distribute 10s. or its value to the 
poor of Crich on the same feast. 

The right of presentation to the chantry was to be vested 
for life in the founder, and then, in default of heirs male, in 


his sister Cecily and her heirs. After a month's vacancy, if 
no presentation had been made, the advowson was to pass to 
the abbot of Darley, to whom the rectory of Crich had been 
for long appropriated ; and after a further lapse of fifteen days, 
to the bishop. Within fifteen days of his presentation, the 
chaplain, in the presence of the lord of Wakebridge and the 
vicar of Crich, and of two other honest parishioners, was to 
make an inventory of the goods of the chantry, which were 
to be left at his departure in as good or better condition. On 
the anniversary of the death of the founder, two wax tapers 
were to burn at his sepulchre in the chapel of Sts. Nicholas 
and Katharine, as well as on the vigil and morrow. The 
chaplain had to say daily full service for the departed and the 
commendation of souls, save on double festivals. 

The chartulary next sets forth at length the respective formal 
sanction given to the alienation of the chantry possessions in 
which they were immediately or mediately interested, by Sir 
Roger Beler, and Roger his son ; by Geoffrey Dethick, and John 
his son ; by William de Kynardsye ; by Richard le Clerk ; 
and by Roger de Wynfeld. 

For some untold reason a delay of several years, involving 
some rearrangement of the complex endowment, took place 
before this chantry was duly enrolled. At length, on 4 June, 
1356, Richard Davy, chaplain of Stony Stanton, was instituted 
to the chantry of Sts. Nicholas and Katharine, de novo fundata> 
by the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, on the presentation 
of William Wakebridge. A few days later he was inducted 
at Crich, by the Archdeacon of Derby, as the first chaplain. 

The founder's revised ordinance is recited at length in 
Bishop Norbury's register (Lichfield Epis. Reg. iii. ff. 48- 
51) ; it differs somewhat from the earlier one cited in the 
chartulary. From it we gather that the altar of this chantry 
stood at the east end of the north aisle of the parish church ; 
that that aisle had been entirely rebuilt by Sir William Wake- 
bridge ; and that its altar had previously been simply dedi- 
cated to St. Nicholas. The order for the observance of St. 
Katharine's day is given in greater detail ; Henry de Coding- 
ton and his wife, together with the relatives and friends of the 
founder, were enjoined to be present at mass on that day, and 
on the vigil of the feast to offer two wax tapers at the founder's 
tomb in the chantry, together with five pence in honour of the 
Five Wounds of Christ and the Five Joys of the Blessed Virgin. 


On a latter page of the chartulary occurs the following 
curious entry, parts of which are illegible, relative to the 
distribution of the 10s. to the poor on St. Katharine's day : — 

Neghbo r I let you understand y* as y k day as you k[now] of old custom y e 
chantre prest of Sanct Nycholas and . . . Kathrin ys bond to dystribute 
x sl in penys [or] penywurthe so y* eny persons . . . coming have j d in sylver 
of sylver wherfor I desyre when masse ys done to tary and receve yo r dole 
and to praye for y e founder Wyliam Wake' ... I desyre your yonge folkes 
and al other to tary w*in y e churche and you shal all be fynde GyfF you 
do nott. 

I desyre you to hold me excusyd for [? or] forsothe you shall go w l out any 

There was a chantry house pertaining to this chantry, 
which the chaplain was bound to keep in repair ; he had also 
to maintain the fabrics of the several cottages on the property. 
On the resignation of Henry Coke, the third chaplain, in 1429, 
a detailed list of dilapidations was entered in the chartulary. 
The expenses incurred in putting the chantry house in repair 
amounted to 365. lid. A shilling was paid to John Mader 
propter sbapillyng lapidum — a quaint instance of the Anglicizing 
used in low Latin. Several of the tenements were out of re- 
pair ; as to that at Plaistow it was reported non est cooportum 
nec muratum nec bostiatum. 

In the year 1368 William de Wakebridge obtained the 
licence of Bishop Stretton to found a chantry at the altar of 
the Blessed Virgin within the parish church of Crich, in bonore 
Domini nostri Jbesu Christi et beatissime Virginis Marie matris sue 
et omnium sanctorum. This chantry was usually known as the 
chantry of Our Lady ; its altar was in the rebuilt south aisle, 
and had formerly been dedicated to St. Stephen. The com- 
position deed, after reciting that the due assent of the abbot 
and convent of Darley, of William de Weston, vicar of Crich, 
and of the parishioners had been obtained, nominated Richard 
Whiteman as the first perpetual chaplain of the chantry, to 
which he was shortly afterwards duly instituted by the bishop. 
The endowment consisted of £6 of rents to be paid annually 
by the prior of Thurgarton, and of certain lands and tene- 
ments specified in a deed held by the chaplain. It was ordained 
that the chaplain was always to be a secular priest ; that he 
should daily celebrate solemn Lady Mass, using as second 
collect one for the good estate of the founder during his life- 
time and for his soul after his death ; that the chaplain clad in 



surplice, on double feasts, on Sundays, and on the festivals of 
Sts. Nicholas, Katharine, Margaret and Mary Magdalene, 
should assist the vicar at mattins, mass and evensong ; that he 
should daily, in conjunction with the chantry chaplain of St. 
Katharine, say his service and the office for the dead in the 
church or (in the chapel in the) churchyard ; that in the mass 
he should always mention by name the founder, his wife 
Elizabeth, Roger de Chesterfield, clerk, John de la Pole and 
Cecily his wife whilst they lived, and pray for their souls after 
death, as well as for the souls of Nicholas de Wakebridge and 
Julia his wife ; of Peter de Wakebridge and Joan his wife, to- 
gether with their sons Robert, Nicholas and Peter ; of Joan 
wife of William de Wakebridge ; and of Joan and Margaret 
daughters of Peter de Wakebridge ; that he should daily offer 
a requiem mass ; that he should daily, save on greater and 
double festivals, say the full service of the dead and commen- 
dation of souls ; and that on all Wednesdays and Fridays he 
should say the seven penitential psalms with the litany, save 
in the weeks of Christmas, Easter and Pentecost. Moreover 
each successive chaplain, on admission to the chantry, was to 
take an oath of continuous residence, and of wearing the can- 
onical dress and tonsure. It was also ordained that, whenever 
the chaplain said or sung mass {sine nota vel cum nota\ save on 
double festivals, in the Introit before the mass began, those 
present should recite devoutly and publicly an Our Father and 
a Hail Mary ; that he should daily after mattins and each of 
the other hours say the psalm De profundis, with the customary 
versicles, in the hearing of those present (in audiencia astancium) ; 
that at the conclusion of the versicles he should say Anima 
Willelmi et anime omnium fidelium defunctorum per Dei misereicor- 
diam in pace requiescant ; that the same words should be used by 
him after mass and compline, and after grace at table ; that 
mass should be said at a convenient hour, so that parishioners 
and others might be present ; that a bell should be rung to 
give warning of the service ; that the chaplain should not 
hold any other benefice, nor undertake any other regular duty ; 
that on the death, resignation, or removal of the chaplain, the 
chantry chaplain of Sts. Nicholas and Katharine should receive 
the profits and fulfil the duties of Our Lady's chantry and re- 
turn full accounts thereof to the new chaplain immediately on 
his appointment ; that no woman, de qua suspicio aliqua possit 
oriri, should live in the chantry house ; that on the anniversary 


of the founder's death a requiem mass for his soul should be 
said, together with the usual office for the departed ; that each 
chaplain, within five days of his obtaining possession of the 
chantry, should draw up, in the presence of the chaplain of 
Sts. Nicholas and Katharine and the vicar, an inventory of the 
number, condition, and value of the books, chalices, jewels, 
vestments, ornaments, utensils, and all other goods pertaining 
to the chantry, which were to be kept in as good or better 
condition than he found them ; that three copies were to be 
taken of such inventory, one to be kept by the chaplain of 
Our Lady's chantry, one by the other chantry chaplain, and 
the third by the vicar ; that each chaplain should leave for his 
successor 40J. in money, that sum having been handed to the 
first chaplain by the founder ; and that no chaplain should 
appropriate to his own use or leave by will any of the books, 
jewels, chalices, vestments or other goods pertaining to the 
chantry. It was further determined that each chaplain, im- 
mediately on his appointment, shall swear on the gospels to 
look diligently after the best interests of the chantry ; that he 
shall be instituted and inducted personally and not by proxy ; 
that on the vigil of the Annunciation, in conjunction with the 
chaplain of Sts. Nicholas and Katharine, he should sing placebo 
et dirige for the souls of Roger Beler senior and Alice his wife, 
for Roger Beler junior and Margaret and Elizabeth his wives, 
for Reynold de Greye of Shirland and Matilda his wife, and 
for the souls of all their ancestors and heirs ; that on the next 
day a requiem mass should be sung at the high altar for the 
souls of the aforesaid ; that, in conjunction with the other 
chantry chaplain, placebo et dirige should be sung on the Satur- 
day before the nativity of St. John Baptist, and on the morrow 
a requiem mass at the high altar for the souls of Roger de 
Chesterfield and Richard his brother, and for Henry de Chad- 
desden, Nicholas de Chaddesden, Geoffrey de Chaddesden, 
Richard de Tissington, Robert de Derby and John Nyk- 
brother of Eyam, the most special and confidential friends 
of the founder ; that the same service should be sung at the 
high altar by the two chaplains, on the vigil and feast of St. 
Michael, for the souls of William de Weston, vicar of Crich, 
of William de Balliden the former vicar, of Richard Davy and 
Richard Whitman the two chantry chaplains, and of all the 
parishioners of Crich who were then dead, or who should here- 
afterwards die ; that all the aforesaid services and prayers 




should also be for the souls of John de Annesley and Anne his 
wife, of Robert de Annesley rector of Ruddington (Notts), 
of John Belewe and Isabel his wife, of John Belewe his son 
and Alice his wife, and of Cecily Wyn and Robert Attehall, 
servants of the founder ; and that these names, with those 
mentioned above, should be placed on tablets above the altar, 
so that they should for ever face the celebrant and be by him 
recited. It was further determined that on a vacancy in the 
chantry, through death or other causes, William the founder 
should present during his lifetime, and after his death his 
legitimate heirs ; that in default of heirs the advowson of the 
chantry should pass to his sister Cecily and her heirs male, 
and in default to the abbot and convent of Dale ; and that, if the 
founder and his heirs should neglect to appoint, and also the 
abbot and convent of Dale after five days' notice, the patronage 
for that turn should go to the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield. 
It was in conclusion ordered that this ordination of the chantry, 
lest the foundation of it should in course of time be forgotten, 
should be read distinctly in the vulgar tongue in the church or 
churchyard of Crich before the duly assembled parishioners, 
year by year by the chaplain, on the Sunday next before the 
feast of the Assumption before the beginning of high mass. 
The ordinance was executed in triplicate, one copy to be kept 
by the chaplain, a second by the lord of the manor of Wake- 
bridge, and a third by the abbot of Dale. The ordinance was 
sealed by William de Wakebridge on the Monday after the 
feast of St. Michael, 1368 ; by the Bishop of Coventry and 
Lichfield at Hey wood, on 30 October ; by the abbot and convent 
of Dale in their chapter house, on 6 November ; and by 
William de Weston, vicar of Crich, on 1 1 November of the 
same year. 

The composition of the chantry of Our Lady at Annesley, 
Nottinghamshire, is next transcribed in the register. It is of 
almost equal length and similar form to that of Our Lady at 
Crich. This chantry was founded in 1363 conjointly by 
William de Wakebridge and Robert de Annesley, rector of 
the church of Ruddington (Rotyntone), with the consent of 
the prior and convent of Felley as patrons of the church of 
Annesley. The chantry chaplain was daily to assist the 
parochial chaplain at mattins, mass and evensong. 

A copy of an encyclical letter of Simon Islip, Archbishop of 
Canterbury, dated 14 December, 1362, addressed to all the 


1 1 1 

bishops of his province, relative to the observance of holy days, 
follows in the register. It was probably ordered to be read in 
all parish churches. The archbishop therein complains, in the 
usual extravagant Latin of the times, that not only was the 
custom prevalent of transacting ordinary business on Sundays 
and holy days, but also of indulging in blasphemous and illicit 
practices, so that the very times intended for devotion were 
given up to dissoluteness, the tavern frequented rather than 
the church, and drunkenness and quarrelling abounded instead 
of prayers and meditations ; in short the whole purport of 
God in hallowing the Sabbath, and of the Church in setting 
apart other days for pious observances, had been by the multi- 
tude perverted to evil uses. The archbishop therefore en- 
joined that there should be abstinence from even useful work 
on all Sundays (beginning to observe it from the vesper hour 
of Saturday), and on the festivals of St. Stephen, St. John, 
Holy Innocents, St. Thomas of Canterbury, the Circumcision, 
the Epiphany, the Purification, St. Matthias, the Annunciation, 
Good Friday, Easter with the three following days, St. Mark, 
Sts. Philip and James, the Invention of the Holy Cross, the 
Ascension, Whitsuntide with three following days, Corpus 
Christi, the Nativity of St. John Baptist, Sts. Peter and 
Paul, Translation of St. Thomas of Canterbury, St. Mary 
Magdalen, St. James, the Assumption of B.V.M., St. Bartho- 
lomew, St. Laurence, the Nativity of B.V.M., Exaltation of 
the Cross, St. Matthew, St. Michael, St. Luke, Sts. Simon 
and Jude, All Saints, St. Andrew, St. Nicholas, the Concep- 
tion of B.V.M., St. Thomas, the dedication of the particular 
parish church and of the saint in whose honour the church was 
dedicated. The archbishop enjoined upon his suffragans to 
see that all and singular their flocks, both lay and clerical, 
should know his will in this matter, and should admonish and 
effectually induce them to pay due honour and reverence to 
all these days, devoutly attending not only mass but the full 
complement of divine services at their parish church, praying 
with earnestness for the living and the dead. It was further 
ordered that the relics of the saints might be carried, according 
to custom, at certain festivals, ad opera ruralia et licita. 

To this succeeds a memorandum concerning a thirteenth 
century dispute that arose between the parishioners of Crich 
and the abbot of Darley as their rector. It was brought to 
the attention of that strict disciplinarian, Archbishop Peckham, 

I 12 


during the time of his visitation of the diocese of Coventry 
and Lichfield. Peckham began this visitation at Coventry on 
Quinquagesima Sunday, 1280 ; his decision in the Crich case 
was dated from Lichfield on the last Thursday in July of the 
same year. In March, as we know from his letters, the primate 
was at Repton, Darley and Ashbourne, Derbyshire, and later 
in the year at various places in Staffordshire, Shropshire and 
Warwickshire, making Eccleshall or Lichfield his usual head- 
quarters. There seems no reason to doubt, as is implied in 
the memorandum, that this stern friar-prelate personally visited 
Crich. He appointed Simon de Balliden, vicar-general of the 
diocese, and R. de Suham, both canons of Lichfield, to act as 
his commissioners in this disagreement. The complaint of the 
parishioners was thus redressed. The abbot and convent of Dar- 
ley were henceforth to find some one to serve as bellringer for 
the parish church, whose duty it should also be to carry water and 
fire there as often as required ; to provide ropes for the bells ; 
to relieve the necessitous and indigent of the parish ; and to 
provide for the serving of the chantry within the chapel of 
St. Thomas of Canterbury, situated in the churchyard at 
Crich, on three days of the week, until the heir of Anker de 
Frecheville came of age. 

A further agreement is next entered between the parish- 
ioners and the abbey, dated 28 March, 128 1, whereby it was 
covenanted in the presence of the archbishop's commissaries 
that the abbey was to find the (patronal) image of Our Lady 
for the chancel of the church and all other necessaries for the 
chancel, both in books and ornaments, save the missal and 
chalice, which were to be furnished by the parishioners ; and 
further that the abbey was also to pay their due share of the 
blessed bread, and of the expenses incurred for the maintenance 
and repair of the nave, in accordance with the lands, posses- 
sions and houses that they held in the parish. 

The parishioners of Crich maintained a light to burn per- 
petually before the image of Our Lady in the chancel of their 
parish church. For this purpose, as stated in detail in the 
register, they agreed to set apart 5 acres 3 \ roods of arable 
land in the township of Tansley for which a rental of \d. an 
acre was paid. Several private benefactions for like purposes 
are also recorded, including a bequest in 1 3 1 1 of a halfpenny 
a year to the light of St. Mary and another halfpenny to the 
light of St. John, chargeable on a meadow at Tansley. 


An indenture, dated on the Sunday after the feast of 
Michaelmas, 1368, between Roger Beler, William de Wake- 
bridge, Henry de Codington, and many other parishioners of 
Crich resident in the various hamlets on the one part, and 
William Weston, the vicar of Crich, on the other, provides 
that all the ornaments, vestments and books that have been 
provided individually and collectively for the use of the clergy, 
chaplains and other ministers between the years 1349 and 
1368 shall be placed in the charge of the vicar and his suc- 
cessors, to be held by them for the use of the parish, and not 
to be privately appropriated or sold by them or by the abbots 
of Darley. The draft of this agreement in the chartulary does 
not give any full inventory of the chalices, books, vestments, 
copes, surplices and ornaments, but specifies a few of the 
special gifts, including a vestment de viridi Camace, with two 
tunicles and a cope of the same, of the then great value of 
£10 ; a cope worth 10 marks, which was the gift of Roger 
Chesterfield to William Wakebridge and the rest of the 
parishioners ; a chalice worth 8 marks ; a missal valued at 
100 shillings ; an antiphonar worth 60 shillings ; and one great 
psalter left to the parish by William de Baliden, the former 

On the following day of this same year indentures were 
drawn up between Sir William Wakebridge, the founder, and 
Richard Davy and Richard Whiteman, the respective chaplains 
of the two chantries, whereby it becomes clear that the goods 
named in the parochial inventory were not inclusive of those 
pertaining to the chantries. There are but few chantry in- 
ventories of fourteenth century date, and as they always possess 
some points of interest to the ecclesiologist and philologist 
they are here reproduced verbatim. 

The goods of the first chantry were : — 

j super altare, j haire, j altar clothe, et ij manutergia curta ad pendendum 
ante altare, Et j manutergia cum frontello super altare, et aliud manutergium 
debile cum frontello et frontellum novum, ij corporales cum casis Et j missale, 
j calicem, Et j vestimentum pro dupplicibus festis, Et j vestimentum pro 
dominicis et j vestimentum debile et vetus pro ferialibus diebus, Et j alter- 
clothe de syndone ad pendendum ante altare, Et j portiforium, Et ij 
manutergia Vetera pro lavatore, Et j tabula depicta super altare, ij pax bred, 
ij fiola, Et j registrum cantarie ad sibi (sic), Et j vestimentum integrum de 
blewsamite cum ij tuniculis et j capa ejusdem sortis. 

The chantry of the second foundation had a briefer in- 
ventory : — 



j super altare, et j haire, Et iij alterclothes et ij frontelles, et iiij manu- 
tergia, Et iij tapetas ad pendendum ante altare, Et j corporale, Et j novum 
casum pro corporali, Et j missale bonum, Et j calicem, Et j vestimentum 
novum, pro duplicibus festis, Et j vestimentum pro dominicis, Et j vesti- 
mentum pro feriis, Et j pax brede, Et ij fiolas. 

The use of a portable (consecrated) slab as a super-altar on 
each of these chantry altars shows that no bishop had conse- 
crated the actual altars ; in fact such consecration of side 
altars in an ordinary parochial church seems to have been the 
exception and not the rule. The c haire ' of each altar means 
the haircloth undercovering of the altar. The Norwich account 
rolls for 1400 mention bayre pro altaribus^ and the Durham 
rolls twice name cilicium for the like purpose. 

Towards the end of the register is another yearly calendar, 
and this is of much more interest, as there are a variety of in- 
terpolations, chiefly of the obits of the founder's family. These 
obits are entered under sixteen different days, and run as fol- 

Obit' Johanne de Wak.' a 0 dni millimo cccxliiij. 
Obitus Willi de Wak.' a 0 dni millimo ccclxix. 
Obit' Tuliane de Wak. a 0 dni millimo cccxviij. 
Obit' Nichi filii Pet. de Wak' a° dni millimo cccxlix. 
Obit' Elizabet de Aslacton soror' ux' Willi de Wak.' Anno 

dni millimo cccxlix. 
Obit' Robti filii Pet. de Wak' quondam vicar' de Cruch. Anno 

dni millimo cccxlix. 
Obit' Willi de Sybthorp. Anno dni millimo cccxlix. 
Obit' Pet. de Wak' et Johanne filie sue. Anno dni millimo 

Obit' Johanne ux' Willi Willi {sic) de Wak' et Margarete soror' 

dicti Willi anno dni millimo cccxlix. 
Obit' Johis de Wak' capellani anno dni millimo cccxlix. 
Obit' Nichi filii Nichi de Wak' a° dni millimo ccc. 
Obit' Pet. filii Pet. de Wak' a° dni millimo cccxlvij. 
Obit' Matild' de Wak' a° dni millimo cccxliij. 
Obit' Nichi de Wak' a 0 dni millimo cccxv. 
Obit' dni Rogi de Chestrefeld a° dni millimo ccclxvij. 
Obit' Cecilie Wyn. a° dni millimo ccclxviij . 

The striking feature about these obits is the number of 
deaths in that awful fateful year, 1349. At that time England 
was being devastated by the Black Death. This great pestilence 
crossed over the seas from Europe in August, 1348, first 
appearing in the seaports of Dorsetshire, and thence slowly 
making its way eastward and northward fed by fresh channels 

lows : 


































of infection from other ports. During the winter months it 
was comparatively dormant ; but by May, 1349, it had reached 
Derbyshire in the very centre of the kingdom, and raged with 
fury throughout England for the next four months. The 
episcopal registers of Lichfield afford undeniable evidence of 
the overwhelming character of the visitation. The total num- 
ber of Derbyshire benefices at that time subject to episcopal 
institution was 108, with an average for the century of seven 
yearly vacancies through death or resignation. In 1346 the 
vacancies numbered four, in 1347 two, and in 1348 eight ; 
but in 1349 the number leapt up to sixty-three, and in the 
following year (many of the vacant benefices being not filled 
up till then) they numbered forty-one. Seventy-seven bene- 
ficed priests of Derbyshire died in that one dread period, and 
twenty-two more resigned. In eight parishes the rectory or 
vicarage was twice emptied, whilst Pentrich, on the opposite 
side of the valley to Crich, lost three successive vicars in the 
fatal year. Nor were the regular clergy more fortunate, for 
out of the small number of religious houses in the county, 
the abbeys of Beauchief, Dale and Darley, and the priories of 
Gresley, St. James Derby, and Kingsmead all lost their 
superiors, so we can judge how the ordinary canons, monks, 
friars or nuns fared. In short, so far as episcopal registers 
bear testimony, Derbyshire was pre-eminent among all English 
counties in the horrors of the pestilence ; for the county 
actually lost more than two-thirds of its clergy within a 

In Derbyshire no class of the community seems to have been 
spared, and no place was too remote or admirably situated to 
escape desolation. The Wakebridges were among the most 
wealthy of the county families, whilst the family mansion was 
commodious and placed on high ground in as breezy a district 
as any that Derbyshire affords. Within three months Sir 
William de Wakebridge lost his father, his wife, three brothers, 
two sisters, and a sister-in-law. Sir William as a younger son 
had gained no small repute amid the stormy wars with France, 
but, on thus unexpectedly succeeding to the family estates, 
he seems to have abandoned the pursuit of arms, and to 
have devoted no small share of his wealth to the service of 
religion. 6 The Great Plague,' as has been remarked, ' had 
the effect of thoroughly unstringing the consciences of many 
of the survivors, and a lamentable outbreak of profligacy 



was the result. But the dire judgments of God had a con- 
trary effect on many others, who were led by His grace to 
a newness of life ; and hence, as a practical outcome of 
their change of habit, we find about this period a marked 
revival in the works of His Church, such as the rebuilding of 
fabrics and the ordination of chantries/ 

Sir William's earnestness led him not only to found these 
two chantries in his parish church and to become the co- 
founder of another in Nottinghamshire, but also to build a 
large chapel for his family and retainers at Wakebridge. This 
chapel he furnished on a generous scale ; an inventory of its 
goods for the year 1368 is inserted in the chartulary. The 
most interesting items are that it included a portifer or breviary 
for the lord of Wakebridge's use, and a manual de usu Lincolnie. 
In Wyrley's copy of the visitation of 1569 (Harl. MS. 6592, 
f. 8 8) it is stated that Sir William c builded a fine chapell at 
Wakeburg, furnishing with orgayne and other costly devises.' 

The considerable remains of this chapel were cleared away 
in the c forties ' of the last century, when the east window was 
moved into the grounds of Mr. Nightingale at Lea Hurst, 
which was long the residence of Florence Nightingale of im- 
mortal memory. 

Others besides Sir William de Wakebridge were moved to 
liberally endow Derbyshire chantries about the same period. 
Prominent among these benefactors were Roger and Richard 
de Chesterfield, and Henry, Geoffrey and Nicholas de Chad- 
desden, who were generous to the churches of the places 
whose name they bore. This chartulary shows that they 
were among the special friends of the benefactor of Crich. 
Sir William several times served as knight of the shire for the 
counties of Derbyshire and Nottingham in parliaments held 
between 1352 and 1362 ; he died in 1369. 

His effigy still remains beneath an ogee-shaped sepulchral 
recess in the north wall of the north aisle. He is represented 
in a long gown, closely buttoned from neck to waist, bare- 
headed, with long beard and hair, the hands joined over the 
breast, and the feet resting on a dog. Two small angels have 
supported the head, but that on the left is broken off ; the 
one on the right holds a Katharine wheel to the ear of the 
effigy ; in all probability the other, when perfect, held some 
emblem of St. Nicholas. A foolish attempt was made by 
representatives of the Bellairs family, about thirty years ago, 


to claim this as the effigy of Sir Roger Beler, lord of the 
manor of Crich, and an itinerant justice ; but every sound 
argument is in favour of it being that of the notable founder 
of the two chantries. 

On the death of Sir William, his sister and heiress Cecily 
brought Wakebridge to Sir John de la Pole. Their second 
son, Ralph, inherited this estate, the eldest son settling at 

Up to the time of a most disastrous restoration of Crich 
church in 1861, the quartered arms of Pole and Wakebridge 
remained in old glass in several of the windows. The Wake- 
bridge arms were azure a fesse gules between six lozenges 
sable, and are instanced by Wyrley in his True Use of Arms 
(1592) as an honourable example of colour upon colour borne 
by that 'valiant knight Sir William Wakbirge of Wakbirge 
in Derbyshire.' 1 

It only remains to notice the curious and superstitious 
notes as to lucky and unlucky days for the letting of blood 
or for the use or abstinence from specific articles of diet 
with which the calendar at the end of the register has been 
interlarded. They have apparently been entered by the same 
hand that inserted the reminder of the Wakebridge obits. 
There are ten of these entries, one for each month save 
January and November ; they are here reproduced verbatim : — 

February. Potagium de malua vocatum hole' non comedatur quia vene- 
nosa est, sunt confrag' manus in vena de pollice imminuere sanguinem vj et 
viij dies sunt periculosi et calidis cibis utandum est. 

March. Ficis et racemis et aliis dulcibus potibus et cibis utendum est, 
sanguinem minnuere non est bonum, minuere sanguinem xvij die in dextero 
brachio pro qualiter febr' anni. 

April. Si quis minuerit sanguinem xj die Aprilis in sinistro brachio 
illo anno visum occulorum non perdet, iij die bonum est minuere sanguinem 
ob visum occulorum. Si quis minuerit sanguinem tercio die Aprilis illo 
a 0 extasim Anglice Swymes nec dolore capitis habebit, carnes recentes com- 
mede et calidis vescere cibis. 

May. Qui in fine Maij iiij vel v to die de quolibet brachio sanguinem 
minuerit nunquam habebit Febrem In mense Maij mane surgere et mane 
commede et calidis cibis et potibus vescere capud et pedes alicujus animalis 
non commedas, iiij sunt dies periculosi, vij. xv. xvi. et xx. 

June. Qualiter die jejunans mane bibe unum haustum aque omne cibum 
et potum in mensura sume et commede, salgiam et lectucam, pro magna 

1 A plaster cast of a fourteenth century seal of William de Wakebrugge is 
in the British Museum collection [xc. 99]. It bears the charges as related 

1 1 8 


necessitate minuere sanguinem septima die periculosum est minuere sangui- 

July. Abstinete a luxuria quia contra cerebrum colligit humores, sangui- 
nem minuere noli duo sunt periculosi dies xv et xix. Julio et August caven- 
dum est minuere sanguinem viij die Kal' Augusti nam tercia die mors sequitur. 

August. Olera de malues nec de caulis commedere noli cibum calidum 
ne commedas, potum veterem nec bibas, sanguinem minuere noli, sunt peri- 
culosi, xix et xx°. 

September. Omnes fructus maturos commede sanguinem minuere bonum. 
Si quis minuerit sanguinem xvij die Septembris a paralisi ydropici franesi et 
morbo caduco non habebit timorem hoc anno. 

October. Justum bonum est bibere et sanguinem minuere si necessitas 
cogat, unus dies periculosus est. 

December. Tres dies pre aliis servandi sunt ne aliquis sanguinem minuerit, 
videlicet, vij Kalen' Aprilis, viij Kalen. Augusti, viij Decembr, quare qui in 
istis diebus hominem vel pecudem percutit tercia die moriatur et hoc proba- 
tum est. 

The same hand also supplies, at the end of the calendar, 
the following prescription : — 

For y e stone strangury and colyke. 

Take malues, violet, mercury, meke of yche j handfulle percele, meydon 
here, tho this tyll of yche half a handfulle, of lyquerice j quartron, seth all yis 
in iiij quartes of ale tyl y e half be consumet. Yen streyn hit thore a clothe 
and gyf hym vj sponfulle of y t licor to dry nek in y e morowe cold and at 
nyght lew warme v/ half a sponfull of y e powd r y t folows, 

Take careaway, fenelsede, spyknard, anneys cinamon, galyngale of yche 
di unce, gromelsede j unce lycorys j unce cene (sic) y e wyeght of alle. 


IN 1578 

THIS interesting relic of Elizabethan days is also a very 
excellent specimen of needlework, the silks of which are 
scarcely faded, though, as the date, 1578, on a label beneath 
the coat-of-arms tells us, it has been in existence nearly three 
hundred and twenty-five years, and the pile of the velvet on 
which it is mounted is almost entirely gone. Few of these 
purses are now in existence, although one was anciently deliv- 
ered each year to the Lord Keeper, and in the eighteenth 
century the wife of a Lord Keeper long in office made the 
curtains of her state bed of these strange perquisites. Many 
such purses must have fallen to the Bacons, a score of them to 
the old Lord Keeper, whose great son Francis also held the seal. 
The history since the death of the old Sir Nicholas Bacon, its 
original possessor, is shown by the pedigree of the Bacons of 
Shrubland, the descendants of his third son. 

The seal bag was probably the last which Sir Nicholas 
was to handle, for he died 20 February, 1 57!, and the bag must 
have passed to Edward Bacon his third son, who had made an 
estate for himself by wedding the heiress of Shrubland Hall 
in Suffolk, an estate which stayed with the Bacons for six 

The Rev. Nicholas Bacon, the last of his line, was the third 
son of the fourth Nicholas Bacon of Shrubland, and of Dorothy 
Temple, granddaughter of Sir William and Lady Temple. 1 
At the time of his succession to the Shrubland estates, he held 
three of the family livings, viz. Coddenham-cum-Crowfield, 
Barham, and Bramford, in Suffolk. He had built the present 
vicarage house at Coddenham, and he elected to spend the rest 
of his days there, instead of returning to the great rambling 
old Hall, which had been the home of his youth. He put 
Bramford in charge of his friend John Longe, one of the 
Longes of Reymerston and Spixworth in Norfolk, whose 

1 N.B. — Lady Temple was the celebrated Dorothy Osborne ; see Letters of 
Dorothy Osborne, edited by his Honour Judge Parry. 




great grandmother had been a Bacon (a daughter of Sir Francis 
Bacon, Judge of the King's Bench). He looked upon him 
with great affection, and also, no doubt, in the light of a 
distant kinsman of his own. 

The two friends further cemented their bond by marrying 
sisters and co-heiresses, Maria and Charlotte Browne ; and 
when Nicholas died, in 1796, he left all his personal property, 
advowsons and lands in Coddenham and Barham and Hem- 
mingstone to this same John Longe, who came into possession 
in 1797, and died at Coddenham Vicarage in 1834. He was 
succeeded there by his second surviving son Robert, who was 
for fifty-six years vicar of the parish, and who died in 1890, 
in his ninetieth year, and thus the purse of the Great Seal 
passed, with other things, into the possession of his eldest 
son, Robert Bacon Longe, now of Spixworth Park. 


The Bacon Purse. 



IT is difficult to treat of an illustrious family like that of 
Greystoke within the limits of a short article, or to confine 
it to one county, when we know that its distinguished place 
among great feudal houses more properly belongs to all 
northern England. Possessed of large estates in York- 
shire, Durham, Northumberland and Westmorland, as well as 
in Cumberland, and allied by marriage with many of the 
principal families of these counties, the Greystokes of Grey- 
stoke exerted a powerful influence in northern affairs and 
occupied a conspicuous position in the political and military 
administration of the Border. But as the family took its name 
from a Cumberland lordship, long reputed as a barony, and 
had been for centuries identified with that district, it may be 
permissible to trace the baronial descent as it affected the 
county in which the chief residence of the family was situated. 
There is no intention to follow the offshoots of this family or 
of any other family discussed or to be discussed in these 
papers. The object of the present article is simply to pursue 
the main line and to authenticate as far as possible the suc- 
cessive links in the pedigree. Few northern houses have 
attracted more pens to delineate their descent than the house of 
Greystoke, and though we are unable to agree with the con- 
clusions of many of the genealogists, we venture to claim the 
reader's indulgence on those points on which we have been 
obliged to dissent from the traditional interpretation. 

The origin of the family in Cumberland cannot be set 
further back with any show of authority than to Forne son of 
Siolf, to whom Henry I. granted the barony of Greystoke 
when he took into his own hand the lordship of the land of 
Carlisle after the departure of Ranulf Meschin, its first Norman 
ruler, about 1120. 1 But it is fashionable to set up Siolf the 

1 Dugdale did not carry the pedigree higher than Ranulf son of Walter, 
who paid ' 300 marks and one palfrey in 12 10 for the wardship and marriage 
of the heir of Walter de Carro' {Baronage, i. 739). Charles Brooke, Somerset 
Herald, has traced from ' Forne son of Siulf or Liulph to whom Ranulf de 
Meschines, lord of Cumberland of the gift of William the Conqueror, con- 



father as an earlier owner and to make him c the Saxon pos- 
sessor of Greystoke.' 1 Forne's father is usually identified with 
Liolf, Liulf or Lyulph son of Edulf, the great Northumbrian 
thane, who was known as Liulf or Ligulf of Bebbanburch or 
Bamborough. A sober writer like the late Mr. Hodgson 
Hinde boldly suggested a mistake in the text when he 
found Symeon of Durham 2 alluding to Forne as the son of 
Sig', and to explain that c this should be Lig' and not Sig\ 
Forno the son of Ligulf, Liolf or Lyulf was the grantee of the 
barony of Greystok in Cumberland/ In this interpretation of 
Symeon's text Hinde has had many imitators. Indeed so 
flamboyant is the antiquarian imagination at times that the 
father of Forne has played the part alternately of Ulf, or 
L'Ulf, the wolf, who is said to have given his name to the 
neighbouring lake of Ulleswater, and of Liulf the unfortu- 
nate minister of Walcher, the famous Bishop of Durham. 
When the Earl of Surrey built a summer house in the eigh- 
teenth century within the park of Greystoke on the shore of the 
lake, c as a retreat from the noise and bustle of state to the 
enjoyments of rural ease and peace,' as the local chronicler 3 of 
the period described it, he was but following the genealogical 
conceptions of his time when he called it c Lyulph's Tower ' in 
commemoration of his first ancestor in possession of the 
barony. It would not be consistent with the scope of this 
article to enter into competition with any of these theories on 
the identity of Forne's father, 4 but it is desirable as a preliminary 

ceded the barony of Creystoc ' {Archteologia, vi. 41). John Denton, who was 
the source of the early pedigrees in the standard county histories of Cumber- 
land, stated that 'the barony [of Greystoke] the earl Randulph Meschiens gave 
to one Lyolf or Lyulphe, and King Henry I. confirmed the same to Phorne 
the son of the Lyolph or Lyulph, whose posterity took the name of the place 
and were called de Graystok' {Cumberland, p. 1 12). Lord William Howard, 
the famous ' Belted Will ' of Border History, writing in 1605, stated that ' the 
first possessors of that inheritance, which now we tearme the Greistockes 
possessions, mentioned in recordes, wear Sigulfus lord of Greistock and Ulfo 
of Grimthorpe, whose great-great-grandchilde, called Raph the sonne of 
William, about A° 1 2 Hen. III. marryed Johan, the daughter of Thomas of 
Greistock, whoe [was] lineally descended from the sayd Sigulfus ' (Household 
Books of Lord W. Howard, p. 391, ed. Ornsby). 

1 Memorials of the Howard Family, app. xi. E, ed. Henry Howard. 

2 Opera, i. 116, Surtees Society. 

3 Clarke, Survey of the Lakes, p. 27, ed. 1789. 

4 If we assume that Siolf, father of Forne, is the same person as Liulf of 
Bamborough, a very interesting sequence of family history arises therefrom. 


to pin genealogists down to the form of the name as it is found 
in documents of unimpeachable authority. There is no 
trustworthy evidence of any kind that Siolf or Sigulf was ever 
the owner of Greystoke. It was Forne himself and not Siolf 
who was enfeoffed by Henry I. The jurors of the inquest of 
1 2 1 2 did not attempt to trace the baronial descent from an 
earlier source. Though it was not Ranulf Meschin who 
created the barony, as it is often assumed, there is no question 
that Forne was known to that distinguished personage while he 
held Carlisle, for as Forne son of Sigulf he attested the charter 
which Ranulf gave in foundation of the priory of Wetheral. 1 
Forne son of Sig' was present at Durham in 1 1 2 1 with a great 
concourse of the principal men, like Robert de Brys, Alan de 
Percy, Walter Espec, and Odard sheriff of Northumberland, 
and other great men of the northern counties, who had 
assembled there by chance at that time on certain business. 2 
He was also in attendance on the court at Nottingham and as 
Forne son of Sigulf witnessed the charter whereby Henry I. 
enfeoffed William son of Ulf, ancestor of the house of Grim- 
thorp, with Thorpe and other possessions in Yorkshire. 3 Forne 
must have died in 1 129 or 1 130, for in the latter year Ives (Ivo) 

In the first place Forne of Greystoke would be a brother of Odard, sheriff of 
Northumberland, who was a son of Liulph de Bebbanburch or Liulf son of 
Edulf (Raine, North Durham, app. nos. iv. xii. xiii). On the further assump- 
tion that Mr. Horace Round's theory is well grounded that Odard of Carlisle 
and Odard of Bamborough are identical, LiulPs family must have occupied 
a position of commanding importance in Cumberland at this early period. 
There is this to be said in favour of Mr. Round's identification that a certain 
Odard son of Liolfe is reputed on fairly respectable evidence to have been 
enfeoffed by Waldeve son of Earl Gospatric I. of a great lordship alongside 
that of Greystoke, and that Adam son of Liolfe was likewise put in possession 
of another tract of territory in the same neighbourhood by the same grantor. 
On the supposition that Liolfe in these instances was the magnate of Bam- 
borough, his three sons had a large slice of central Cumberland in their pos- 
session. The conspicuous influence of Odard of Carlisle in early Cumbrian 
transactions would be accounted for in some measure by these family connec- 
tions. But in no original document have we found Liulf of Bamborough re- 
corded as Siolf or Siulf, and, vice vetsa, we have failed to meet with Siolf, father 
of Forne, in authentic evidences under the name of Liolf or Liulf. 

1 Reg. of Wetherhal, p. 5, ed. J. E. Prescott. 

2 Symeon of Durham, i. 116, ed. H. Hinde. 

3 The original of this charter with the royal seal appendant was in 
existence, according to Brooke, in the time of Queen Elizabeth among the 
evidences of the Lords Dacre of the North, and a copy, which he printed in 
1782, was in the College of Arms {Archaologia, vi. 49). 




his son had seizin of his father's lands. 1 John of Hexham 
relates that both Forne and Ives were among the early bene- 
factors of that monastery. 2 

Ives or Yves son of Forne, the second lord of Greystoke, 
with Agnes his wife and Walter her father made a grant of 
two homesteads (mansiones) in perpetual alms to the priory of 
Carlisle, which was afterwards confirmed by Ranulf son of 
Walter his grandson. 3 He witnessed the charter whereby 
Chetell son of Eldred conferred the three churches of Mor- 
land, Bromfield and Workington on the abbey of St. Mary, 
York. 4 Ives was still living in 1 1 6 1, when he was credited with 
a remission of two marks by the sheriff of Northumberland 
by order of the Chancellor. 5 He had a sister Eda or Edith 
about whose fair name a romance, not to say a scandal, has 
been woven by the historians. Leland stated that Edith Forne 
was a woman of fame and highly esteemed by Henry I., by 
whose procuration Robert d'Oilli wedded her, 6 but Dugdale 
more bluntly described her as a beautiful woman and a royal 
concubine. 7 John of Hexham 8 seems to favour the untoward 
inference of the later writers. At all events by her subsequent 
conduct Edith endeavoured to atone for her early indiscretions. 9 

Ives son of Forne had four sons, Walter, Robert, Adam 
and William, neither of whom do we find from the local 
evidences in connection with the Cumberland barony. But it 

1 Forne appears to have held 3^ knights' fees in Yorkshire {Liber Rubeus, 
i. 434, ed. H. Hall ; Liber Niger, i. 326, ed. Hearne), and Ives his son paid 
iooj. to the sheriff of that county in 1 130 for livery of his father's land (Pipe 
Roll, p. 25, ed. Hunter). The earliest mention we have of Forne is when he 
witnessed King Alexander's foundation charter of the monastery of Scone in 
ni4or 1 1 1 5 in company with Gospatric brother of Dolfin and William the 
Aetheling of England (Liber de Scon, pp. 1—2, Bannatype Club ; Dalrymple, 
Scottish Collections, 371-3). 

2 The Priory of Hexham, i. 59, Surtees Society. 

3 Monasticon, vi. 144. 

4 Register of St. Bees (Harleian MS. 434), f. 102^. 

5 This statement is made on the authority of Hodgson Hinde, who was 
of opinion that Hugh son of Orn in the Pipe Roll of 7 Henry II. was a mis- 
nomer for Yves son of Forne (History of Northumberland, iii. pt. iii. 5, i. 281). 
But see Pipe Roll (Yorkshire), 9 Henry II., where the sheriff renders account 
of ten marks for Hugh son of Od'en. 

6 Itinerary, ii. 17 ; Monasticon, vi. 251. 

7 Baronage, i. 460 ; Lappenberg, Norman Kings, p. 348, ed. Thorpe. 

8 The Priory of Hexham, i. 138. 

9 Monasticon, v. 404, vi. 251. 


is probable that Walter was in possession for a few years, 1 as 
he is said to have held the Yorkshire estates of the family from 
1 1 62 to 1 1 65. Beatrice de Folketon, his wife, was a bene- 
factress of the abbey of Rievaulx in Yorkshire, 2 to the endow- 
ment of which several of the family afterwards contributed. 
In 1 1 65 Ranulf son of Walter was assessed to a c donum ' in 
the Pipe Roll of Northumberland. In the c barons' certificates ' 
of 1 1 66 it is declared that Ranulf s ancestors held their fees 
from Henry I., and that Ranulf himself held 3-g- knights' fees, 
of which Ernald de Mondevill did the service of one knight. 3 
As Greystoke was held by cornage, the barony was not 
included in that return. Portions of the Cumberland barony 
were in litigation amongst Ives' immediate descendants while 
Ranulf son of Walter was in possession. A double suit lay 
in the king's court between members of this family in 1181. 
Henry son of Robert son of Ives obtained a writ against 
Ranulf son of Walter for certain woodland in dispute, and 
Robert son of Adam son of Ives was successful in a recogni- 
tion of Hutton and its appurtenances against William son 
of William son of Ives. 4 In 11 85 the family troubles were 
not over, for Henry son of Robert was again in the king's 
court against Ranulf son of Walter about the advowson of 
the church of Dacre. 5 It was this Ranulf son of Walter 
who gave a carucate of land in Stainton to the priory 
of Carlisle 6 and lands in Yorkshire to the abbey of Rievaulx. 7 
William son of Ranulf was in possession in 1203 and paid 
£5 to the scutage of that year. 8 He was returned in one 
of the inquisitions entered in the Red Book of the Exchequer as 

1 Mr. Henry Howard has printed abstracts of the charters of enfeoffment 
both of Ives son of Forne and Walter son of Ives by Henry I., taken from 
copies in the College of Arms made by St. George {Memorials of the Howards, 
app. v. E). Walter son of Ives paid one mark for scutage in 1162 to the 
sheriff of Northumberland (Pipe Roll, 8 Henry II.). 

2 Cbartulary of Rievaulx, p. 117, ed. J. C. Atkinson. 

3 Liber Rubeus, i. 434 ; Liber Niger, i. 326. 

4 Pipe Roll (Cumberland), 27 Henry II. 5 Ibid. 31 Henry II. 

6 Monasticon, vi. 144. 

7 According to Dodsworth, the name of Ranulfs wife was Amabel {Cbar- 
tulary of Rievaulx, p. 49, ed. Atkinson). This agrees with the abstracts of St. 
George's MS. quoted by Mr. Howard, where it is stated that Ranulf son of 
Walter received Conniscliffe in dowry with Amabel, and that he gave Mikelton 
in free marriage with Alice his daughter (Memorials of the Howards, app. v. E). 

8 Pipe Roll, 5 John. 




holding two vills in demesne and two in homage at the 
annual cornage rent of £4, but he must have died in 1209, 
for Robert de (Veteri Ponte) Vipont [owed] 500 marks and 
5 palfreys in 1 1 John for having custody of the land and heirs 
of William son of Ranulf until the said heirs were of age and 
for the marriage of the heirs, and also for the marriage of 
Helewise de Stutevill, widow of the said William, the first 
payment being due at Easter in the eleventh year. 1 The 
cornage rent of £4. remained the traditional tenure of the 
barony. In the roll of dames, girls and valets in the king's 
ward made in the early years of Henry III., the land of 
Helewise de Stutevill was valued at £30 a year. She had 
made fine with King John that she might marry whom she 
pleased. 2 

Thomas son of William son of Ranulf was still a minor 
in 12 12, as he was then in ward of Robert de Vipont, 3 
whose daughter Mary he is said to have married, but he was 
in possession of c Crestoc ' in 1229. 4 William son of Ranulf 
and Thomas son of William often appear as witnesses in local 
deeds in connection with the monastic houses of Carlisle, 
Lanercost and Wetheral. In 1244 Thomas son of William 
obtained a grant of a weekly market and a yearly fair at his 
manor Greystoke ; in the charter for the market he is called 
Thomas son of William de Craystok, the first mention of the 
territorial name that has come to notice. Thomas son of 
William seems to have been the first of the family to adopt 
it. 5 

Robert de Greystoke succeeded his father, Thomas son of 
William, and did homage in 1247 for all the lands and tene- 

1 Liber Rubeus, ii. 493. The entry in the Pipe Roll (Cumberland), 11 
John, has an important bearing on the date of this inquest. If the Cum- 
berland inquest took place at any time between 1 2 1 o and 1 2 1 2 according to 
Mr. Hall, or in June, 1212, according to Mr. Round, how comes it that the 
name of William son of Ranulf appears in it as holding Greystoke ? This 
point needs exposition. In the great inquest of 121 2, known as Knights' Fees 
\, m. 2, of whose date there is no doubt, Robert de Vipont had custody of 
the land and heir of William son of Ranulf. 

2 Victoria History of Cumberland, i. 334, 420. 

3 Knight? Fees \, m. 2, in Victoria History of Cumberland, i. 421. 

4 Pat. Roll, 1 3 Henry III. m. zd. 

5 Charter Roll, 29 Henry III. pt. 1. m. 1 ; Placita de Quo Warranto, p. 
119, Record Commission. As Thomas son of William de Graistoc he wit- 
nessed a deed in the Register of Wetherhal, p. 238, ed. J. E. Prescott. 


ments held in chief. 1 At the same time his father's executors 
had permission to make a free administration of his goods 
and chattels. Robert died in 1264 and Elene his widow paid 
a fine of ^20 for liberty of marrying where she pleased within 
the kingdom. 2 A schedule of his possessions in Cumberland 
and Yorkshire, including the advowson of the church of Grey- 
stoke, is set out in the usual inquisition after death. 3 

William de Greystoke, brother and heir of the afore- 
named Robert, did homage in 1264 for his brother's lands. 4 
With Mary his wife, sometimes called Margery or Margaret, 
eldest daughter and co-heir of Roger de Merlay, who was 
born 5 about 1242, he obtained large possessions in North- 
umberland, including a moiety of the barony of Morpeth. At 
the assizes 6 held in Newcastle in 1256, William impleaded 
Hugh de Bolebec for dowry settled upon Mary his wife on 
6 February, 1253, at the door of the church of Morpeth, by 
her first husband, Walter de Bolebec, Hugh's son and heir. 
As the contracting parties had been under age at the time of 
Mary's first marriage, an agreement was effected out of court. 
In 1268 William did homage 7 for his wife's possessions as the 
sister and co-heir of Alice de Merlay, lately deceased. With 
the moiety of the Merlay lands came several suits at law. 8 
William de Greystoke was summoned to perform military 
service 9 against the Welsh in 1277 when he was represented 

1 Fine Rolls, ii. 14, ed. Roberts. 

2 Ibid. ii. 186 ; Originalia, i. i$b, Record Commission. 

3 Inq. p.m. 38 Henry III. No. 42. 

4 Origtnalia, i. 140. 

5 Calendarium Genealogicum, i. 132. 

6 Assize Rolls of Northumberland, pp. 14, 55-6, ed. W. Page. 

7 Fine Rolls, ii. 464, 467. 

8 Assize Rolls of Northumberland, pp. 165-6 ; Pat. Roll, 3 Edw. I. m. 25 ; 
Abbrev. Placit. pp. 222*2, 279, Record Commission. 

9 Parliamentary Writs, i. 649, ed. Sir F. Palgrave. Into the vexed questions 
whether the owners of Greystoke were barons by tenure or by writ, and what 
was the origin of the distinction, the writer has no qualifications to enter. The 
whole subject has been discussed in the Lords 1 Third Report on the Dignity of a 
Peer, ii. 230-3, to which the reader may be referred. The earliest date in 
which we have found the dignity of baron applied to this family is the year 
1275, when William de Greystoke is spoken of by a Yorkshire jury as baron 
of Greystoke {Rotuli Hundredorum, i. 104, Record Commission). It may be 
mentioned here that when the Index Summonitionum is quoted in this article, 
the alphabetical digest in the appendices of the Reports from the Lords Com- 
mittees touching the Dignity of a Peer of the Realm, published in 1829, is meant. 



by two knights for his own inheritance and two knights for 
that of his wife. In 1282 he was summoned to serve in 
person, and in 1289 he departed this life. 1 

John de Greystoke, son and heir of William son of Thomas, 
deceased, did homage in 1289 at tne a g e °f twenty-five for all 
the lands his father held in chief on the day he died. This 
owner of the barony, who has been described as vir strenuus sed 
corpulentus* appears among the nobles on the roll of Humfrey 
de Bohun, Earl of Essex and Constable of England, containing 
offers of service made at the muster of Carlisle on the eve of 
St. John the Baptist, 1300, for the army against Scotland. 3 
Lord John offered service due from two and a half knights* 
fees by Henry Redman, Adam de Colewell, Thomas le Tayllur, 
John le Mareschal, and Robert de Joneby with five horses 
fully equipped. In 1297 Dame Isabel his wife, from whom 
he had been separated, sued him for alimony in the ecclesiasti- 
cal court of Carlisle, but as Lord John offered to restore her 
to his marital affection and society, her suit was unsuccessful. 4 
From 1 29 1 till his death he served his country both in the 
council and in the camp, having been frequently summoned to 
parliament and to military service against the Scots during 
that period. 5 The jurors of the inquisition taken after his 
death 6 in 1306 declared that he had granted a reversion of his 
lands to Ralf son of William his kinsman. He had a brother 
William, who died without issue, and a sister Margaret de la 
Vale. 7 

On the death of John de Greystoke without issue, the 
representatives in blood of that family came to an end in the 
male line. The barony passed to the son of Joan de Grey- 
stoke, wife of William fitz Ralf, lord of Grimthorp. 8 This 
was done by settlement in 1297 before the death of Lord John, 
who bequeathed his possessions ultra hereditatem to Ralf fitz 

1 Inq. p.m. 17 Edw. I. No. 15 ; Orlginalia, i. 61 a, 61b. 

2 Newminsier Cbartulary, p. 282, ed. Fowler. 

3 Documents and Records, pp. 209, 229, ed. Palgrave. 
* Carlisle Epis. Registers, MS. i. 126. 

5 Parliamentary Writs, i. 648 ; Index Summonitionum. 

6 Inq. p.m. 34 Edw. I. No. 40. 

7 Pat. Roll. 32 Edw. I. m. 25. Lord William Howard adds Thomas and 
John as his uncles. This Thomas de Greystoke married Agnes, daughter of 
John de Lungevilers and widow of Thomas de Pennington (Furness Couchet 
Book, pp. 487-8, Chetham Society). 

8 Inq. p.m. 34 Edw. I. No. 40 ; 35 Edw. I. No. 157. 


William, his kinsman. 1 Certain portions of the estates were 
reserved to the heirs, if any, of his brother William, and 
failing these they were to revert to the heirs of his sister 
Margaret de la Vale. Before his succession to the Greystoke 
lands, Ralf fitz William had a distinguished career, many 
particulars of which are inscribed on the rolls of parliament. 2 
In 1282 he married Margery widow of Nicholas Corbet and 
eldest daughter and co-heir of Hugh, baron of Bolebec, 3 by 
whom he had two sons, William and Roberta He was present 
at the siege of Carlaverock in 1300 when he made a fine appear- 
ance in his surcoat of arms, the three chaplets of red roses 
becoming him marvellously. 4 About the feast of All Saints, 
1 3 1 6, he died at a great age, and was buried at Nesham, 5 his 
eldest son William having predeceased him. 

Robert son of Ralf son of William succeeded his father, 
but did not long survive him, for he died in the following 
year. By the inquisition taken after his death, the jury re- 
turned that the barony of Greystoke having been much wasted 
by the Scots, had fallen in value from 200 marks to £62. To 
Elizabeth his wife was assigned a widow's dowry and Ralf 
their son was declared to be the real heir and nineteen years of 
age. 6 Robert de Greystoke was buried at Butterwick, 7 but 
Elizabeth survived till 13 46. 8 

Ralf, lord of Greystoke, was a minor at his father's death, 
and did not receive livery of his lands till 132 1, in which year 
he was summoned to parliament as Ralf de Craystok. 9 He 
married Alice, daughter of Sir Hugh de Audley, and became 
one of the followers of the younger Sir Hugh in the c pursuit ' 
of the Despensers. The king was afraid of his coming under 
the influence of the Earl of Lancaster, and warned him against 

1 Pat. Roll, 25 Edw. I. pt. ii. m. 8 ; Nezvminster Chartulary, pp 

2 Rotuli Parliamentorum, i. 216, 288, 304, etc. ; Pari. Writs, i. 615, 616. 

3 Fine Roll^io Edw. I. m. 17. 

4 Roll of Carlaverock, p. 8, ed. T. Wright. 

5 His monumental effigy is described by Surtees in History of Durham, iii. 

6 Inq.p.m. 10 Edw. II. No. 66 ; Close Roll, 17 Edw. II. m. 35. 

7 Nezvminster Cbartulary, p. 294. 

8 Inq.p.m. 20 Edw. III. 1st nos. No. 52. 

9 Index Summonitionum. Ralf appears to have been the first member of 
the Grimthorp line to assume the name of Greystoke. Though he changed 
his territorial name, he did not adopt the arms of the Greystoke house. 



attending the meeting of c good peers' at Doncaster in 132 1. 
He was present at the battle of Borroughbridge where Lan- 
caster was overthrown. His armorial bearings were inscribed 
on the roll 1 of that battle as 'burule dazur et dargent ove 
iii chapeletz de gul.' During his short life he was often 
summoned to parliament and to military service. At the 
siege of Mitford Castle in 1323 which Gilbert de Middleton 
was holding against the king, he was treacherously poisoned 
and buried before the high altar in the abbey of Newminster. 2 
His widow was afterwards married to Ralf, Lord Neville of 

The barony was placed in the custody of Thomas de 
Burgh by Edward II. and of Sir Hugh de Audley by Edward 
1 1 1., till William, the heir, a child of three years, came of age, 3 
which happened in 1342 when he had livery of his lands. 
Lord William was first married to Lucy daughter of the Lord 
Lucy of Cockermouth, whom he c deservedly repudiated.' * 
On the death of his divorced wife he married Joan, daughter 
of Henry fitz Hugh, lord of Ravensworth, by whom he had 
three sons, Ralf, William and Robert, and one daughter, Alice, 
who became the wife of Robert de Haryngton. He was a 
great favourite with the monks of Newminster, who described 
him as glorious in person and victorious in war. In 1354 he 
had licence to rebuild and crenellate his manor house of Grey- 
stoke and to surround it with a stone wall. 5 About the same 
time he also built the tower of Morpeth. He died at Brance- 
path, 6 the house of his mother, and was buried with great 
pomp and solemnity in Greystoke church in August, 1359. 
His obsequies were celebrated by Bishop Welton in person in 
presence of a large assemblage of local magnates, lay and 
ecclesiastical, including Ralf, Lord Nevill of Brancepath ; Thomas, 
Lord Lucy of Cockermouth ; Roger, Lord Clifford of Appleby ; 
Sir Henry Lescropp and Sir Thomas de Musgrave, senior, 
knights ; John, prior of Carlisle ; Robert, abbot of Holmcultram ; 

1 Parliamentary Writs, ii. 957, etc. ed. Palgrave. 

2 Newminster Cbartulary, p. 294. 

3 Originalia, i. 278^, ii. iyb, Record Commission ; Close Roll, 16 Edw. 
III. pt. i. m. 21 ; Baronage, i. 741. 

4 Hie primo duxit in uxorem Luciam filiam domini de Lucy, quae digne 
ab eo spreta et mortua apud Nesham sepulta est ( Newminster Cbartulary, p. 

5 B.M. Lansdowne Charter, No. 122 ; Pat. Roll, 27 Edw. III. pt. ii. m. 8. 

6 Newminster Cbartulary, pp. 294-6. 


Lambert, abbot of Shap ; William de Rothbury, archdeacon of 
Carlisle ; Thomas de Salkeld, rector of Clifton, and Richard de 
Aslacby, vicar of Stanwix. During the celebration of mass, at 
the time of the oblations, as the custom was, two helmets, two 
swords, two shields, two lances, two horses and two men fully- 
accoutred, one for peace and one for war, together with a sum 
of money, were offered by the deceased baron's executors and 
received by the bishop. On the conclusion of the service, the 
venerable prelate reminded the nobles present that all the 
oblations were his by right and custom by reason of his 
personal celebration of the obsequies, but that he delivered 
them of his own free will to Joan, widow of the said Lord 
William, with the exception of the money which he distributed 
among the clerks of his chapel. 1 He is commemorated in 
Greystoke church by a blue marble tombstone with a brass 
plate and four shields on which he is described in French as 
the good baron of Greystoke, the most valiant, noble, and 
chivalrous knight of the country in his time. 2 

Ralf, Lord William's eldest son, a lad of six years, was 
committed to the custody of Roger Mortimer, Earl of March, 
till he came of age. 3 He married Catherine, daughter of his 
neighbour Roger, Lord Clifford of Appleby Castle,* and was 
a prominent figure in Border affairs, serving as warden of the 
West Marches and constable of Lochmaban, having been ap- 
pointed to the latter post by Edward III. While he was on 
his way to take over the ward of Roxburgh Castle in 1382 he 
was made prisoner by the Scots and put to heavy ransom. 5 
Ralf, Baron Greystoke, was summoned to parliament from 
49 Edward III. to 5 Henry V., in which latter year he died, 
his wife having predeceased him in 14 13. 6 

1 Carlisle Epis. Reg. MS. ii. 57. 

2 It is little wonder that the clergy of Greystoke should have their muni- 
ficent patron commemorated in grand style, for it was Lord William who first 
set on foot the scheme for transforming the parish church into a college, con- 
sisting of a master and six chaplains. Bishop Welton gave his consent, but 
the scheme was not completed owing to the death of the patron. It was 
revived however in 1377 by Ralf, Lord Greystoke ; and after much negotiation 
and controversy the college was formally founded in 1382 on the lines origin- 
ally adumbrated by Lord William in 1358 {Pat. Roll, 1 Ric. II. pt. ii. m. 10 ; 
Carlisle Epis. Reg. MS. ii. 342-3). 

3 Inq. p.m. 32 Edw. III. No. 43 ; Baronage, i. 741. 

4 Newminster Chartulary, p. 296. 

6 Pat. Roll, 6 Ric. II. pt. i. m. 1 1 ; Ancient Petitions, No. 4221. 
6 Newminster Chartulary, p. 302 ; Index Summonitionum. 



John, Baron Greystoke, succeeded his father in 141 7. He 
was constituted warden of Roxburgh Castle from 22 March, 
1 420- 1, for four years, at an annual fee of £1,000 in time of 
peace and £2,000 in time of war, 1 and was thenceforth mixed 
up in international treaties with Scotland. From 7 Henry V. 
to 13 Henry VI. he had summons to parliament. 2 His will, 
dated 10 July and proved 27 August, 1436, is still preserved 
in the Probate Registry of York. He bequeathed his body to 
be buried in the collegiate church of Greystoke, with his best 
horse, his habiliments of war, such as coat armour, pennons, 
gyron, etc., for the mortuary. Various bequests were made to 
Elizabeth his wife, who was a daughter of Sir Robert Ferrers 
and co-heiress of the barony of Wemme, and also to Thomas, 
Richard and William, his sons, to every gentleman, yeoman 
and groom in his service, to the repair of the abbey of New- 
minster and the church of Greystoke. 3 Ralf, his eldest son 
and heir, was made the executor of his will. According to 
the menology of Newminster, John, Baron Greystoke, of pious 
memory, died on 8 August, 1436, and was buried at Grey- 
stoke, his wife having been buried in the church of the Friars 
Preachers at York. 4 

Ralf succeeded his father in 1436, and being of full age 
had livery of his lands in the same year. For his marriage 
in 1435 w * tn n ^ s kinswoman Elizabeth, daughter of William, 
Lord fitz Hugh of Ravensworth, he had a special dispensation. 
The licence shows the affinity of the contracting parties. 5 His 
eldest son Robert married Elizabeth daughter of Edmund 
Grey, afterwards Earl of Kent, both of whom died during the 
lifetime of Baron Ralf; Elizabeth on 18 July, 1472, and 
Robert on 17 June, 1483. Elizabeth, the only child of this 
marriage, became sole heiress to the Greystoke estates, and 

1 Close Roll, 9 Hen. V. m. 19. 

2 Index Summonitionum. 

8 Testamenta Vetusta, pp. 230-1, ed. H. Nicolas. 

* 'Newminster Chartulary, p. 303 ; Monasticon, v. 401. 

5 The depositions made on 22 November, 1434, show that Sir Henry 
Fitzhugh was the father of Henry and Joan Fitzhugh ; Henry was the father 
of another Henry, and the grandfather of William, then Lord Fitzhugh, the 
father of Elizabeth one of the petitioners. On the other side it was shown 
that Joan daughter of Sir Henry Fitzhugh married William, Baron of Grey- 
stoke, the father of Ralf, the father of John, the father of Ralf the petitioner. 
On these depositions Pope Eugenius IV. granted the marriage licence on 
1 July, 1435 (Testamenta Eboracensia, iii. 327-8, ed. J. Raine). 

Forne son of Sio 

Ives son of Forne = Agnes daugP 
alive in 1161 I of Walter 

Walter son of Ives, died = Beatrice de 
probably in 11 65 I Folketon 

Ranulf son of=Amabel 



William son of Ranulf=Helewise de 
died in 1209 | Stutevill 



Thomas son of William de=Mary daughter of 
Greystoke, died in 1247 I Robert de Vipont 

Robert de Greystoke, =Elene William de Greystoke, = Mary daughter and co-heir of Roget 

died without issue in 

died in izi 

de Merlay and widow of Walter de 

John de Greystoke, died = Isabel 
without issue in 1306 

William de Greystoke, 
died without issue 

William son of Ralf, died before 
his father without issue 

Ralf de Greystoke succeeded i 
died in 1323 ; buried at Nei 

Lucy daughter of the Lord Lucy=William de Greysb 
of Cockermouth, divorced in 1342, diedjn 

Ralf de Greystoke, = Catherine daughter of Roger, Lord 
died in 141 6 I Clifford of Appleby, died in 141 3 


John de Greystoke, succeeded in 141 7,= Elizabeth daughter of Robert Ferrers 
died in 1436, buried at Greystoke I of Wemme, died in 1434 

Elizabeth daughter of William, Lord Fitzhugh=:Ralf de Greystoke, succeeded in 143 6,= Beatrice 
of Ravensworth, died in 1468 I died in 1487, buried at Kirkham 

Robert de Greystoke, = Elizabeth daughter of Edmund Grey, afterwards John de Greystoke, =Ce 

died in June, 1483 I Earl of Kent, died in July, 1472 married in 1484-5 Ez 

Thomas de Dacre, Lord of = Elizabeth de Greystoke, 
Dacre and Gillesland I died in i<i6 

r"" ! " 

(1) Dacres of Gillesland and Greystoke 

(2) Howards of Naworth, Greystoke and Corby 

died in 1129-30 

Eda or Edith wife of 
Robert Doilli 






1 : 1 

e Greystoke= Agnes daughter of John de J°hn William son of=Joan de Greystoke 
Lungvillers and widow of Ralf lord of I 

Thomas de Pennington] Grimthorpe I 

ie la Vale 


Ralf son of William, died in= Margery daughter of Hugh de Bolebec 
1 3 16, buried at Nesham I and widow of Nicholas Corbet 

Robert son of Ralf, died in 1 3 1 7 = Elizabeth [daughter of Ralf, Lord 
and was buried at Butterwick I Nevill], died in Nov. 1346 

=Alice daughter of Sir Hugh 
:\ J de Audley, died in 1374 

baron, succeeded^ Joan daughter of Henry fitz Hugh, 
it Greystoke I lord of Ravensworth 

Robert de Greystoke 


Robert de Greystoke 

Alice de Greystoke wife of 
Robert de Haverington 

mas de Greystoke 

Richard de Greystoke 


William de Greystoke 

Joan de Greystoke=John Darcy son of Sir John 
Darcy, knight 

Elizabeth de Greystoke, died in 
1440, wife of Roger Thornton 

of William Herbert, 
li te, died in 1499 

I 1 

Richard de Greystoke, Ann de Greystoke, married in 1432-3 to Ralf 

a priest son of Sir John Bigod, knight, of Setterington, 

died in 1476 

[To follow page 132 


was committed to the ward of Maud, Countess of Northum- 
berland. John, one of his sons, made a splendid alliance with 
Cicely, daughter of William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, 1 and 
another son, Richard, took holy orders and became a prebend- 
ary of Lincoln and succentor of York. The position of this 
great northern baron at the outbreak of the Wars of the Roses 
was both delicate and critical. William of Worcester tells us that 
he and Lord Fitzhugh were suspected of treachery to the Lan- 
castrian cause and suffered many indignities on that account, 
but that they succeeded in clearing themselves. 2 After the 
battle of Towton however there was no doubt about the 
political sentiments of the Baron of Greystoke, for in Novem- 
ber, 1 46 1, Edward IV. nominated him on the commissions 
for Cumberland, Westmorland, Northumberland and York- 
shire, to array all the good men of these counties for defence 
against the king's enemies of Scotland, and Henry VI. and 
Margaret his wife and their adherents. 3 He was frequently called 
to parliament, and was often employed in Scottish transactions. 
By his will, dated 27 May and proved on 30 July, 1487, he 
expressed a wish to be buried before the altar in the church of 
Kirkham, the patronage of which had been granted to him in 
1468 by Edward IV. 4 The chaplets of Greystoke still sur- 
mount the beautiful gateway of that priory. Beatrice Hat- 
clifFe, his widow, married Robert Constable, sergeant-at-law, 
in 1490, but, again left a widow, she took the veil of chastity 
in 1 501-2, and made her will in 1505. 5 

On the death of Ralf, Lord Greystoke, in 1487, the direct 
line of the house of Grimthorp came to an end, and the 
barony descended to his grand-daughter, Elizabeth de Grey- 
stoke, a girl of thirteen years. In true Border fashion the 
heiress was gallantly carried off in the night from Brougham 
Castle by Sir Thomas Dacre, the heir of a great northern 
house, as his ancestor, Ranulf de Dacre, had stolen Margaret 

1 Testamenta Eboracensla, iii. 349. 

2 Wilhelmi Worcester Annates Rerum Anglic, pp. 486, 498, ed. Hearne. 

3 Pat. Roll, 1 Edw. IV. pt. ii. m. 1 zd. The commission for West- 
morland included such men as Sir Thomas Parr and Sir Richard Mus- 
grave with Thomas Middleton, William Parr, John Parr, and Richard Mus- 
grave, while that for Cumberland included Sir John Hudleston, Thomas 
Lamplugh, Richard Salkeld, John Denton, John Skelton, Roland Vaux, and 
a Morisby. 

4 Ibid. 8 Edw. IV. pt. ii. m. 16. 

5 Testamenta Eboracensia, iv. 20-1, 195-7, 236-9 ; iii. 355, 363. 



de Multon, the heiress of Gillesland, from Warwick Castle in 
13 17. As the family had acquired the extensive barony of 
Gillesland by the first elopement, Sir Thomas succeeded in 
joining the baronies of Gillesland and Greystoke by his mar- 
riage with the Lady Elizabeth. With no more valiant race 
and with no better blood could the heiress of Greystoke be 
united. The wild slogan of this warlike house, c A Dacre ! 
A Dacre ! A rede bull ! A rede bull ! ' was the trumpet call 
to victory on many a hard fought field. After a few descents 
the family of the Lady Elizabeth was destined to end in co- 
heiresses. Lord Thomas Dacre had left three daughters ; the 
Duke of Norfolk, when he married the widow, had three sons. 
There was a family arrangement. Then it was that the 
Howards, splendid in their family alliances, as a writer in the 
Quarterly Review once described them, had gained a territorial 
settlement in Cumberland. The barony of Greystoke went 
with the Lady Ann Dacre to the Earl of Arundel and Surrey, 
from whom its present owner, Mr. Henry C. Howard, the 
popular chairman of the county council of Cumberland, is 
descended, and the barony of Gillesland was the portion of 
the Lady Elizabeth, who married Lord William Howard, the 
duke's third son, the hero of Border minstrelsy, whose noble 
descendant, the Earl of Carlisle, occupies the ancient seat of 
the Dacres at Naworth Castle, where the c towers, unmodern- 
ized by tasteless art, remain still unsubdued by time.' 


LANDS, A.D. 1396 

In the summer of the year 1396, Duke Albrecht of 
Bavaria, at that time Count of Haynaut, Holland and Zee- 
land, prepared a great expedition against the Frisians, a race in 
those days practically independent of the counts of Holland, 
notwithstanding that these bore the title of Lord ( c Heer ') of 

This expedition was the first of a long series that would be 
undertaken in the following ten years by the duke, and after 
him by his son and successor Count William VI., and which 
were destined to be once more taken in hand and finally 
brought to a successful close by the generals of Emperor 
Charles V. 

The accounts of this undertaking of the year 1396 are of 
importance even with regard to English history, because of the 
auxiliary forces that were sent to the duke at his request by 
the King of England. 

Two writers give particulars of the English troops and 
their leaders. 

The first is Froissart ; in the thirteenth book of his famous 
Chronicle we find the following lines : — 

' Le roy Richart, pour Ponneur de ses cousins de Haynnau avanchier, 
envoia aucuns hommes d'armes accompaignies de deux cens archiers Anglois, et 
en estoient chiefs et cappitaines trois chevalliers d'Angleterre, nommes Tun 
Cornuaille, le second Colleville, et du tiers n'ay-je pu savoir le nom, mais bien 
ay este" infourme" qu'il estoit vaillant homme de son corps et bien us6 d'armes, 
de guerres et de batailles et avoit eu son menton coup6 en une rese (i.e. 
querelle) ou il avait ung petit par avant este, et luy avoit depuis este fait ung 
menton d'argent qui luy tenoit a une cordelette de soye par a Pentour de la 

The Dutch chronicler Heda mentions them in a passage which 
I here translate from the Dutch : 

* And (had as auxiliary forces) from England the Count of Staelgis and 
Monsier Corgewale, Monsier Collewile, Monsier Bitterlye and Monsier 
Moerleye, knights, with many men of noble birth and about five hundred 




The Latin edition of Heda's book mentions only : c ex 
Anglis comes de Stalgies et praefectus Cornugaliae.* 

Now there is a manuscript belonging to the same period 
in a Dutch private collection in which we find the coats of arms 
of some 150 Dutch, Belgian, French, German and English 
noblemen, who joined in this expedition, which, as we shall see 
presently, is also of great historic importance. 

First of all let us examine the three c chiefs et cappitaines.' 
The c chevalier Cornuaille,' c Corgewale ' or ' praefectus 
Cornugaliae ' appears in the Armorial as c Tan Cornuaelye,' 
bearing ermine a lion gules crowned gold with a border 
of sable bezanty, and therefore belongs to the Cornewall 
family. i Colleville ' or c Collewile ' is not mentioned in the 
Armorial^ but I fancy we may conjecture that he was one or 
the Colvil family bearing c silver a mill-rind cross of sable.' 
The third, whose name is unknown to Froissart, is perhaps 
the same as the Count of Staelgies, whom we find in the 
MS. as c Sir Jehan de Scaelyon ' bearing silver with a green 
lion. The family is unknown to me. 

c Monsier Moerleye ' is named c Morley ' in the MS., 
and his arms are silver a lion sable crowned gold with a label 
of gules, showing him to be a son of the great house of the 
Lords Morley. 

c Monsier Bitterlye 1 is not mentioned in the MS. 

As to the archers we find some of their names in the old 
c rekeningen ' (accounts) of the county of Holland. 

I give the following passages translated from the Dutch : 

two archers named Heynri Haf and John of Gywoert, 
An English archer named 1 Jan die Leedse,' 
paid to Jan Parfay, 

four archers named William Parkyer, Jan Sadelare, Ritzaert Ton and Nyclaes 

paid Robbert Holt for 1 9 archers, 
paid Jan Parfay aforesaid for 1 8 archers, 

paid to the following Englishmen : Talboom, the wild knight, Goedsken, 
Jan Cong, Ridsiaert Hampton and Williaem Halseldey. 

That is all we know of their names. 

It may be mentioned here that while the army was at 
Enkhuizen, from where they crossed the Zuiderzee to Fries- 
land, a quarrel broke out between the English and the other 
soldiers, which resulted in the death of almost the whole force 
sent by King Richard before the war had practically begun. 



WITH General Wrottesley's monograph on the ancient 
house of Giffard the Ancestor has already dealt. 1 The 
interest, however, attaching to the origin of the GifFards of 
Chillington — as a house which is still seated on the lands that 
its founder held by knight-service in the days of Henry II. 
— is so exceptional that I propose to consider further, in the 
present paper, the theory that it sprang from the Giffards, 
lords, indeed barons, of Fonthill Giffard in Domesday. 
General Wrottesley, himself, one may mention, a Giffard of 
Chillington on the mother's side, has adopted this theory of 
their origin, and has established, on record evidence, a strong 
presumption of its truth. 

There is, however, I venture to think, a point on which he 
has gone astray, and on which the correction of his miscon- 
ception will enable us to throw some fresh light on Wiltshire 
county history. 

General Wrottesley has shown that Fonthill — or rather 
Fonthill Giffard, chiefly known as the site, subsequently, of 
Beckford's famous palace — was the caput of a little c barony ' — 
for a c barony* it was, as being held in chief, though the service 
which it owed the Crown was only that of a single knight — 
and that this barony, after the death of Robert Giffard in the 
days of John, was divided among four (eventually three) co- 
heirs, of whom Robert de Mandeville was the eldest. He 
further observes (p. 10) that 'the Wilts Pipe Roll of n John 
(1209) states that Robert de Mandeville then owed 50 marks 2 
for the lands of which Robert Giffard had been seised when he 
died,' and that — 

the Oxfordshire Pipe Roll of the same date states that Robert Mauduit owed 
20 marks for his purparty of the lands which formerly belonged to Robert, 
to be held of Robert Mandeville as the eldest co-heir. 

These statements are obviously taken from the Red Book 

1 Ancestor, iii. 223—8. 

2 This should be 60 marks (i.e. £40). This sum was wandering about 
(peregrinabantur) on the rolls till 18 Hen. III., when it was charged under 
Dorset and Somerset, where Robert's own barony lay {Red Book of the Ex- 
chequer pp. 769-70). 



of the Exchequer (pp. 769-71), in which are found some stray- 
extracts from the Pipe Rolls relating to this barony. But 
General Wrottesley has been careful to assign them their 
right date, the editorial dates of Mr. Hubert Hall in the 
Red Book margin being a year wrong owing to the editor's 
confusion of the regnal with the financial year (pp. 7 6 8-7 1). 1 

The four co-heirs in John's reign were Robert de Mande- 
ville, 2 Robert Mauduit, William Cumin and Robert de 
Fontibus, but the last of these is not heard of again. 3 I can- 
not quite agree with General Wrottesley that c the division of 
Gerard's lands among so many co-heirs extinguished the 
barony, and it disappears altogether from the records after 
the death of Robert GifFard in the reign of King John ' 
(p. 12). For Robert de Mandeville is returned as holding 
c j feodum in Funtel 1 in 12 12, 4 that is to say, the whole 
barony of Fonthill, and in the roll of the thirteenth year of 
John (121 1) the three co-heirs account jointly c de feodo j 
militis quod (fuit) Gerardi GifFard,' 5 the whole two marcs 
due being remitted to the eldest, Robert de Mandeville. 
Again, in 1232(F) we find the two junior co-heirs charged 
respectively for one third of a knight's fee each to the scutage 
of Elvain, with the significant addition — 

Sed Robertus de Mandeville debet eos acquietare, quia Robertus Maudut 
debet tenere feodum illud de eodem Roberto de Mandeville, sicut continetur 
in rotulo xj Regis Johannis in Oxonefordsira. Et Willelmus Comin debet 
tenere feodum illud de eodem Roberto de Mandeville, sicut continetur in 
rotulo xiij Regis Johannis in Wiltesira. 6 

The former of the two entries referred to is given on the 
opposite page, where we read : — 

Robertus Mauduit xx m. pro habenda parte sua de terris et tenementis 
quae fuerunt Roberti GifFard tenenda de Roberto de Mandeville tanquam de 
prlmogenito participe suo, salva eldem Roberto esnecia sua. 

1 It has been recently pointed out by Miss Norgate, independently, in her 
Join Lackland (p. 123), that 'the marginal dates added in that edition are 
wrong throughout John's reign/ so that all his scutages are misdated. Such 
is the result of what is now termed ' Advanced Historical Teaching.' 

2 He can be identified as Mandeville of Marshwood (Dorset). 

3 I refer to the records here dealt with, but an important entry in the 
Testa (p. 152) records that 1 Johannes de Cantilupo heres Roberti Maudut et 
heres Willelmi de Fontibus tenent feodum unius militis in Funtel de Galfrido 
de Mandeville et ipse de domino Rege.' 

4 Red Book of the Exchequer, p. 481. 

8 Ibid. pp. 153, 770. 6 Ibid. p. 770. 


I have dwelt on this in some detail because it brings us 
face to face with an interesting point in feudal law, namely 
that doctrine of esnecia (ainesse) which was raised so recently 
as last year when it formed the foundation of Lord Ancaster's 
claim, as the senior co-heir, to be solely entitled to the dignity 
of Lord Great Chamberlain. Among the statements in sup- 
port of its validity made in his printed Case we find Glanvill 
cited as stating that c If a fief fell to daughters, homage was 
done by the husband of the eldest daughter only' (p. 13). 

I had, however, in a Memorandum which I was asked to 
prepare upon the point, to call attention to the fact that the 
law was even then uncertain, or, rather, undergoing change. 
In their sections on c Co-heirs and parage ' and c Fluctuations 
in the law as to parage/ Messrs. Pollock and Maidand dis- 
cuss the subject in some detail 1 : — 

But though the division among the co-heiresses was in general a strictly 
equal division, we see the eldest daughter or her husband standing out as the 
representative of the whole inheritance for certain purposes. 

Robert de Mandeville did so, we have seen, in the case of 
the Fonthill barony. After explaining this c old theory ' as 
c the Norman tenure in parage/ by which the eldest sister 
holds as the c only tenant . . . c the whole inheritance ' . . . 
' while her sisters hold their shares of her/ the learned authors 
pass to the time when — 

the law is beginning to fluctuate. In 1236 the English in Ireland sent to 
Westminster for an exposition of the law. Of whom do the younger sisters hold ? 
The answering writ, which has sometimes been dignified by the title Statutum 
Hibernice de Coheredibus, said that if the dead man held in chief of the king 
then all the co-heirs hold in chief of the king and must do him homage. If 
the lands were held of a mesne lord, then that lord has the marriages and ward- 
ships of all the parceners, but only the eldest is to do homage, and her younger 
sisters are to do their services through her hands. The eldest daughter, the 
writ says, is not to have the marriage and wardships of her sisters, for this 
would be to commit the lambs to the wolf. 

It is interesting to remark that although the king, the 
authors observe, had habitually taken the homage of all the 
parceners for some time before 1236, yet the younger co-heirs 
of the Fonthill barony were still holding of the eldest about 
this time. But even the tenants-in-chief, we read, c followed 
the king's example and exacted homage from all the sisters/ 
so that c very soon, if we are not mistaken, the old law of 
parage began to fall into utter oblivion.' 2 The Committee for 
1 History of English Law, ii. 274—6. 2 Ibid. p. 276. 



Privileges of the House of Lords soon dismissed the doctrine 
of esnecia, as obsolete from an early date, in Lord Ancaster's 
case. 1 

We will now consider another and a more interesting 
term in feudal phraseology. A vavassoria was the holding, 
one may presume, of a vavassor. But what was a vavassor ? 
General Wrottesley writes thus : — 

The Close Roll of 4 Hen. III. [1220] has the following writ — 'Whereas 
Andrew Giffard, who held the Barony of Fontil by hereditary right, was dead, 
and had resigned the Barony temp. King John, with the King's assent, to 
Robert de Mandeville, Robert Mauduit, William Cumin, and William de 
Fontibus, as right heirs of the Barony, retaining in his own hands the vavas- 
soria of the Barony, and (sic) which were held of the Honor of Clare, the 
said vavassoria were now to be delivered to Robert de Mandeville and the 
other heirs above named.' 

The vavassoria were the tenures by Castle Guard at the Earl's castle of 
Chepstow or Strigul (p. 10). 


It will be remembered that part of the Fonthill fief consisted of vavassoria 
or tenures by castle guard at the Castle of Strigul (now Chepstow), the caput 
of the Barony of Clare. 

The service of castle guard was usually performed by the younger sons of 
the military tenants of the barony. It was an honourable office, which could 
be filled without the great outlay in arms and horses entailed by the service 
of a knight. It requires therefore no great stretch of imagination to conceive 
Peter Giffard, 2 a cadet of the house of Fonthill, performing this service at 
Strigul, and in this way becoming enlisted in the expedition which sailed from 
that point to Ireland . . . in 1 1 70 (p. 85). 

There has been expended on the word vavasor a fair 
amount of learning, but neither in the glossary of Ducange, 
nor in Godefroy's valuable work, nor in any other book 
known to me, is there anything to support the view that it 
denoted castle-guard. General Wrottesley, I believe, relies on 
an early return of the services due to the see of Bayeux 3 ; but, 
although the word vavassorias occurs once in this, there is 
nothing to throw any light at all on its meaning. Moreover 
it is immediately preceded by the return of the knights of 
Normandy, under Henry II.,* in which there is frequent 
mention of castle-guard, but always as performed by knights 

1 Compare the Ancestor, i. 2 5 2-3 for the application of this doctrine to 

2 Founder of the house of Chillington. 

3 See Red Book of the Exchequer, pp. 645-7, and other versions. 
* Ibid. pp. 624-45. 


{milites)} Conversely, there is in this list mention of vavas- 
sores, but not as owing castle-guard. 2 The true meaning of 
the word vavassor must be sought, I think, from those to 
whom it had recently had a living meaning. Thus in a 
French glossary about a century old we find c Vavasseur * 
defined as 'Arriere-vassal . . . ne possedant qu'un fief, . . .. 
qui relevoit d'un autre fief and 'Vavassorie' as 'Arriere 
fief.' 3 And rare although the word is in our own records, I 
have never doubted that its real meaning was that iof c under- 
tenant/ The vavassor es of the Archbishop of York and of 
Robert Fossard are mentioned, under Yorkshire, on the Pipe 
Roll of 1 130 ; but the best illustration of its use is found in 
the writ of Henry I. regarding the local courts, a document 
familiar to students of our institutional history. In it we 
read — 

Et si amodo exurgat placitum de divisione terrarum vel de occupatione, si 
est inter dominicos barones 4 meos, tractetur placitum in curia mea. Et si est 
inter vavasores alicujus baronis mei honoris, tractetur placitum in curia domini 
eorum. Et si est inter vavasores duorum dominorum tractetur in comitatu. 

It is clear that, in this document, barones are the tenants-in-chief 
and vavasores their under-tenants, who are more frequently 
termed milites (as in the c Cartae baronum ' of 1 166). Under- 
tenants had often, of course, to take their turn of guard at 
their lord's castle, but the word vavassor in itself has no more 
than miles has to do with castle-guard. 

My friend Professor Adams of Yale, who has recently dis- 
cussed the above document, 5 cites in illustration c the Constitu- 
tion of Conrad II. of 1037/ in which we read : c Hoc autem 
de majoribus walvassoribus observetur. De minoribus vero in 
regno aut ante seniores aut ante nostrum missum eorum causa 
finiatur.' This extract may serve to remind us that, exactly as 

1 For instance : ' xvj milites de honore de Vernone ad custodiam castri de 
Vernone' (ibid. p. 630) ; ' iiij partes militis ad custodiam castri de Gaurei,' 
. . . i ] militem ad custodiam ejusdem castri,' . . . ' quartam partem ad custo- 
diam ejusdem castri,' etc., etc. (p. 634). So too, in England, * Hii omnes 
praedicti faciunt gardam castelli de Hastinges in quolibet mense per xv mili- 
tes' (p. 623). 

2 Castle-guard may have been performed by ' vavassores ' as well as by 
* milites,' but my point is that vavassoria does not mean * tenure by castle- 

3 Gkssaire de la langue Romane, ii. 690. 
* The italics are mine. 

5 American Historical Review, April, 1903. I have followed his text. 



with barO) vavassor could be loosely used in more senses than 
one. As the tenant-in-chief, if a great lord, sometimes spoke 
even of his under-tenants as c barones,' so might even tenants- 
in-chief be spoken of as c majores vavassores ' in relation to 
their sovereign lord. In short, a vavassor was a vassal, either 
great or small, but, in a specialized sense, the vassal of a tenant- 
in-chief. 1 

7 Let us now apply my conclusion to the case of the Giffards 
of Fonthill, and of their c vavassoria ' held of c the Honour of 
Clare/ My contention is that — 

(1) Vavassoria does not mean c tenure by castle-guard.' 

(2) Even if it did, that guard could not be due c at the 

castle of Strigul (now Chepstow) the caput of the 
Barony of Clare/ because that castle had nothing to 
do with c the Honour of Clare,' of which the caput 
was the mighty moated mound of that name on the 
border of Essex and Suffolk. 

(3) The c vavassoria ' held of c the Honour of Clare 9 can 

be identified, and can be shown to have been held by 
the 'Andrew Giffard ' of the Close Roll. 
That Gerard Giffard, the baron of Fonthill, was an under- 
tenant of the Honour of Clare in 1 1 66 is proved by the 
carta of the earl, under Suffolk, in the Red Book of the Exchequer 
(p. 404), where we read : c Gerardus Giffard 1 militem.' But 
as this important entry is omitted in the index to that unfortu- 
nate work, it might well be overlooked. We have now to 
discover the whereabouts of this knight's fee, which was clearly 
of the old feoffment. Where, as in the case of the Giffards 
and the Clares, two of the most illustrious houses of the old 
Norman nobility, 3 the pedigree goes back to the Conquest, one 
naturally turns to Domesday to see if one can find Giffard of 
Fonthill holding anywhere under Clare. The surname of an 
under-tenant is rarely entered in the Survey, but, luckily for us 
the Christian name of Berenger is, in it, a rare one. And we 
find a c Berenger ' holding of the then lord of Clare a manor 

1 Compare the learned and interesting note on vavassor in Pollock and 
Maitland's History of English Law (1895), i. 532, where the denotation and 
etymology of the word are left somewhat uncertain. Genealogists will not 
need to be reminded of the surname Vavasour, originating probably in a nick- 
name, the existence of which tends to confirm the rarity of the word, as the 
name of a class, in England. 

2 See Feudal England, p. 469, and add : ' et quocunque nobilium conventus 
se ageret illorum pompa terribili multitudine ferebatur.' 


of c Sutton ' in Wilts. Now in Wilts there are two Suttons, 
which lie, as the crow flies, some thirty miles apart, one in the 
north-west, and the other in the south-west of the county ; 
the former is Sutton Benger, the latter Sutton Mandeville. As 
Mr. Jones observed, in his work on the Wiltshire Domesday, 
it would, at first sight, be supposed that the former preserved 
the name of c Berenger,' the Domesday under-tenant, and yet 
it was the latter Sutton which is found, in after times, held of 
the Honour of Clare. And indeed we find it so held by a 
Geoffrey de Mandeville in the ¥ °,sta. Now Sutton Mandeville 
lies close to Fonthill Giffard ; the two villages are less than 
four miles apart. It is common enough to find, in Domesday, 
two neighbouring estates held by the same man, the one as an 
under-tenant, the other as a tenant-in-chief. 1 

But we have yet to connect the Giffards with Sutton Mande- 
ville. This Sutton can be shown to have been held by the 
Mandevilles of Marshwood, who, as we have seen, were the 
senior co-heirs of Giffard of Fonthill. 2 The evidence cited 
in Dugdale's Baronage (i. 206) shows them in possession, 
Geoffrey, who had held it, we saw, of the Clares, selling it 
c unto Dru de Barentine, to acquit him of his debts to the Jews.' 
But the newest and most interesting evidence is that which 
shows us Andrew Giffard making a grant out of Sutton. 
This consists of Ancient Deed A. 8529. 

Grant in pure alms by Andrew Giffard, with his body, to the church of St. 
Mary of Stanley and the monks there, of the land with a messuage in Sutton, 
which William Blund held of him . . . also grant to the same monks that they 
may have for ever six oxen and three cows, quit of herbage, in his pasture, to- 
gether with his demesne oxen, etc. etc. 

Witnesses : Hugh de Temple, canon of Salisbury, Stephen, parson of the 
church of Tysseb[eri], Thomas de Sutton, Thomas de Dunton, chaplains, John 
the deacon, Master Thomas of Salisbury, William de Haselden, Peter Giffard, 
etc. etc. 3 

Mr. Maskelyne, the editor of the Calendar, who has a 
great mastery of topography, and of Wiltshire topography in 
particular, does not venture to tell us to which of the Suttons 

1 See, for instance, Feudal England, p. 222. 

2 See p. 122 above. General Wrottesley asserts {The Giffards, p. 202, note) 
that * the younger branch of the Mandevilles (the Barons Fitz John), who 
represented the Giffards of Fonthill, bore the ancient arms of Mandeville ' (of 
Essex). But this is a misconception. The representatives of the Fonthill 
Giffards were the totally distinct line of Mandeville of Dorset. 

3 Catalogue of Ancient Deeds, i. 322. 

i 4 4 


this document belongs ; but the fact that Tisbury, the parson 
of which appears as the second witness, is the parish adjoin- 
ing Fonthill Giffard and Sutton Mandeville, and that William 
de Haselden derived his name, doubtless, from Hazleton in 
Tisbury, practically settles the matter, while the genealogical 
argument above removes all question. 

Let me now briefly recapitulate the results at which we have 
arrived. We have seen that the Wiltshire Sutton held by the 
Clares in Domesday was clearly Sutton Mandeville ; that 
* Berenger,' its under-tenant, was Berenger GifFard of Fonthill 
(Giffard) ; that it continued to be held of the Clares by his de- 
scendants down to the time of Andrew ; and that on Andrew's 
death, under Henry III., it passed to the Mandevilles of 
Marshwood, as senior co-heirs of the Giffards, and derived 
from them its name of Sutton Mandeville. 1 

I italicized the name of Peter Giffard among those of the 
witnesses to Andrew's charter because he would probably be 
claimed as Peter the second of Chillington, in which case his 
appearance in the deed would be further and important evidence 
of a connection between the Chillington house and the Giffards 
of Fonthill Giffard. 2 Independent evidence in its favour has 
been found by General Wrottesley in the well-known c stirrups ' 
coat of the Chillington house, which distinctive bearing, he 
suggests, may be derived from c the Scudamores of Upton and 
Fifield, co. Wilts' (p. 85). If we would follow up this clue, 
we must ascertain the position of the Scudamores in that county. 
General Wrottesley proceeds to state that — 

The feodary of 1 166, which is known as the 'Liber Niger,' 3 records under 
Wiltshire that Godfrey de Scudamore held at that date four knights' fees, and 
that one of these was held by Walter GifFard ' of old feoffment.' ... I think 
it probable that Peter Giffard was either son or brother of this Walter (p. 85). 

Walter's name is given (whether rightly or wrongly) in the 

1 By a fine of Easter, 4 Edw. I. John de Mandeville, son of John de Mande- 
ville, granted to Simon de Monte alto and Clemencia his wife a rent * in the 
manor of Merswode in co. Dorset,' and the manor and advowson of * Sutton 
Mandeville, co. Wilts' {Somerset Fines , ed. Somerset Record Society, p. 388). 

2 The date of the Sutton charter would be 1 209-20. General Wrottesley 
has printed {The Giffards, p. 214) the charter by which Richard, Bishop of 
Coventry, confirms the grant of Chillington to Peter Giffard the first, and to 
which 1 Andreas Giffard clericus ' is a witness. But this was a good deal earlier 
in date (1 175-81). 

3 This is a misapprehension. 


Red Book of the Exchequer (p. 245) as c Waleram ' ; but the 
point I desire to bring out is the peculiar status of the Scuda- 
more fees. Under Wiltshire Godfrey de Scudamore is returned 
as holding of Robert c de Weias ' four fees c of the old feoff- 
ment ' and one c of the new ' ;* and one of the former fees is 
held of him by 'Waleram ' (not Walter) Giffard. But a note 
is added showing that the fees had been the subject of a suit. 2 
Under Herefordshire Godfrey 'Escudor' is entered as holding 
of Robert de c Eweias ' four fees c of the old feoffment ' only. 3 
Some light is thrown on the matter by the entry, under Wilt- 
shire, on the Pipe Roll of it 68, recording Godfrey's payment 
for five fees. 

Godefridus de Scudemor reddit compotum de v marcis de eodem auxilio 
pro v militibus, quae ideo redduntur quia Robertus Dewias nondum voluit 
recipere homagium suum ' (p. 160). 

The fifth fee (of the new feoffment) cannot be traced in 
the carta of Robert of Ewyas (Harold) unless it is that of 
Godfrey de c Tifente.' But the Scudamores seem to have had 
nothing to do with Teffont (Ewias) ; their fees were in Upton 
Scudamore and Norton Scudamore (now Norton Bavant) with 
a fifth in Fifield-Bavant. In any case, the evidence for con- 
necting the Giffards of Chillington's stirrups with the Scuda- 
more coat appears to me slender. 4 

One does not like to criticize the merry and ingenious 
Planche, who held that the motto of the Giffards of Chilling- 
ton, c Prenez haleine et tirez fort/ addressed to an archer, 
connects their stirrups with the cross-bow or arbalest, c which 
had what is called a stirrup at the end of the stock, into 
which the foot was put in stretching it ' ; but the interesting 
' standard ' which General Wrottesley has elsewhere repro- 

1 Liber Rubeus, p. 245. 

2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. p. 286. 

4 Both the name and the coat of Scudamore require investigation. In the 
Duchess of Cleveland's Battle Abbey Roll we read of the name's ' sacred signifi- 
cance as a contraction of Escu d' Amour, the shield of Divine Love,' represented 
on their arms originally by a 4 cross patee fi tehee, or.' Guillym has some en- 
gaging nonsense on the subject, but the stirrups of Scudamore can be traced 
back, at any rate, to the days of Edward I. One cannot, however, detect in 
them a * canting ' device of any kind upon the name, and indeed it is difficult 
to say how the name arose. It occurs as ' de Escudemore ' on the Roll of the 
Norman Exchequer in 1 1 80, but the * de ' is often omitted and soon drops 
out, nor has any place of the name hitherto, I believe, been identified. 



duced, 1 proves that their archer used the long-bow, not the 
cross-bow. General Wrottesley is now disposed to connect 
this device, subsequently used by the family as a second crest, 
with the prowess of Sir John Giffard, the grantee of the 
c standard,' as an archer. 3 

While on the subject of Giffard heraldry one should say 
something of the coat borne by Lord Gifford : c Azure, a 
chevron between 3 stirrups with leathers, or, within a bordure 
engrailed argent, semee of pellets/ This it will be seen is the 
Chillington coat differenced by the bordure and the chevron 
in the usual modern style. General Wrottesley observes of 
it (under Giffard of East Ginge, Dorset, and Burton, Wilts) 
that — 

When Robert Gifford of Exeter was created Baron Gifford of St. Leonard's, 
co. Devon, in 1824, he claimed to descend from this family, and the Heralds 
granted him their arms ; but the descent has not been proved, and ... it 
is far more likely that they descend from the Giffards of Halsbury or the 
Giffards of Yeo (p. 78). 

No coats or crests could be more radically different than 
those of the Devon and of the Staffordshire Giffards. So the 
plea that the new peer's coat was merely based on that of his 
c name ' will not here avail. By granting him the Chillington 
coat differenced and the Chillington crest of the panther's 
head slightly differenced, the Heralds obviously recorded their 
belief that he sprang not from the Devonshire, but from the 
Staffordshire house. 3 And what grounds had they for that 

As Lord Halsbury's pedigree in Burke s Peerage is still 
headed by the statement that the name of Giffard c signifies 
The Liberal] it may be well to set beyond doubt its real mean- 
ing. In Godefroy's great Dictionnaire de Vancienne langue 
Frangaise (1885) we reac ^ tnat i Gifart,' c Gifard,' or 'Giffard,' 

1 In vol. iii. of the William Salt Arch. Soc.'s Collections. 

2 See Genealogist (new ser.) xix. 7-8. I feel, however, some difficulty in 
accepting this view, for the * standard ' was assigned to him by the Heralds, 
12 July, 1523, as representing the 6 devises et cognoyssances ' of his * prede- 

3 Nothing can alter the fact that the 'stirrups' were the old and distinctive 
bearing of the Giffards of Chillington, who were, naturally, by no means 
pleased at the coat assigned to Lord Gifford. The family from which he 
claimed to descend had, it is true, been assigned that coat, 'differenced with a 
border,' at the Wiltshire visitation of 1565, according to General Wrottesley, 
but, apparently, by no right of descent. 


means ' joufflu,' that c Gifarde ' is c servante de cuisine joufflue,' 
while as £ Giffard ' it was c nom d'une famille celebre de Nor- 
mandie.' ( Joufflu ' is defined in Littre's Dictionary as describ- 
ing a man who has big or fat cheeks ( c qui a de grosses joues '). 
The expression c ce petit joufflu-la,' cited by Littre, shows how 
easily the peculiarity might give rise to a nickname. This, of 
course, is nothing new ; in her work on The Battle Abbey Roll 
(1889), the Duchess of Cleveland collected the evidence of 
Metivier's Dictionnaire Franco-Normandy Ducange's work, and 
Roquefort's Dictionnaire de la langue Romane^ who agree that 
c GifFarde ' meant the c fat-cheeked ' scullery wench. The 
thought of such a derivation shocked her, indeed, to incre- 
dulity, because she forgot, or did not know, how deplorably 
rude the Normans were, in the matter of surnames, to one 
another. But she admitted that c the reading of Liberal or 
Free-Giver seems merely to rest on an atrocious mis-spelling 
of Giffard, and is inadmissible from its being English — a 
tongue wholly unknown to the Normans.' 





Under this heading the Ancestor will call the attention of press 
and public to much curious lore concerning genealogy, heraldry 
and the like with which our magazines, our reviews and news- 
papers from time to time delight us. It is a sign of awaken- 
ing interest in such matters that the subjects with which the 
Ancestor sets itself to deal are becoming less and less the sealed 
garden of a few workers. But upon what strange food the 
growing appetite for popular archaeology must feed will be 
shown in the columns before us. Our press, the best-informed 
and the most widely sympathetic in the world, which watches 
its record of science, art and literature with a jealous eye, still 
permits itself, in this little corner of things, to be victimized by 
the most recklessly furnished information, and it would seem 
that no story is too wildly improbable to find the widest cur- 
rency. It is no criticism for attacking s sake that we shall 
offer, and we have but to beg the distinguished journals from 
which we shall draw our texts for comment to take in good 
part what is offered in good faith and good humour. 

THE practised interviewer who would invade the domestic 
quiet of a Celebrity at Home does not seek the Celebrity 
under his fig-tree or his vine. In nine cases out of ten the 
Celebrity is sought and found in his favourite seat under the 
spreading boughs of his family tree ; and in a remarkable 
number of instances the first vedette of questions brings back 
information concerning the c Norman ' or ' Saxon ' descent of 
the Celebrity at Home. 

Sir Oswald Mosley, a Celebrity lately found at Home at 
Rolleston Hall, represents a family practically founded by a 
Nicholas Mosley, who became Lord Mayor of London in 
1599. A pedigree even of this length is one which, as things 
go, many, perhaps most, baronets might have cause to envy. 
But for a c Celebrity at Home ' it is impossibly short. Accord- 
ingly in a recent article on Rolleston and its owner we find 
the pedigree carried back to a c Saxon ' distinguished from the 
rest of his race by a most un-Saxon name. 



About four miles from Wolverhampton lies the secluded hamlet of Mose- 
ley . . . Its name is found in Domesday as 4 Moleslei ' . . . Previous to 
the reign of King John the manor had fallen into the hands of one Ernald, a 
Saxon (sic), who lived at Moseley, and, according to the custom of the time, 
derived his surname from his place of residence. He had two sons, the elder 
of whom died without male issue. . . . The second son of Ernald de Mose- 
ley, named Oswald or {sic) Osbert, left several children, who migrated into 
the counties of York and Lancaster, Richard de Moseley being governor of 
the castles of Wakefield Sandal and Conisborough in the reign of Edward the 
Second, and for the next two centuries the Moseleys occupied a prominent 
position in the North of England, one of them purchasing a place called 
Hough End, near Manchester, which is still in existence. Here three or four 
generations continued to live, and the fortunes of the family may be said to 
have been established when Nicholas and Antony, the younger sons of Edward 
Moseley, of Hough End, entered the woollen trade. 

Now only last year as it happens there was printed for the 
Chetham Society a complete and accurate account of the 
Mosley family, an account of considerable genealogical and 
heraldic interest. From this we learn that c the Mosleys of 
Manchester/ Sir Oswald's ancestors, were 'according to 
family tradition descended from the Moseleys of Moseley in 
Staffordshire ' ; but that c this descent has never been proved 
and is probably unprovable/ The earliest known ancestors 
of the family are Jenkin and James Mosley, living at Hough 
End towards the close of the fifteenth century ; and even the 
existence of Jenkin and James is known to us only from 
their mention in a c confirmation ' of arms to Sir Nicholas, the 
London Alderman, in 1592. The one thing certain about 
them is that c they were not owners of Hough.' 

* * * 

The first documentary evidence, however, we learn begins 
only with Edward Mosley, who appears on a Manchester 
subsidy roll of 1541, and whose son and heir, Oswald, did 
suit and service in the Court Leet of Manchester for a tene- 
ment in 1 57 1. In Burke s Peerage the pedigree begins with 
this Edward, though he is there alleged to have descended 
per saltum i from Oswald 2nd son of Ernald de Moseley, Lord 
of Moseley, co. Stafford, temp. King John.' The actual de- 
scent of the present line is through Edward's son Anthony, a 
Manchester clothier, who died in 1 607, and who c was not the 
owner of Ancoats as he is said in most of the pedigrees to . 
have been.' 

* * * 

The most significant part of the story has yet to be told. 


We learn from the same excellent treatise that the arms c con- 
firmed ' to Sir Nicholas Moseley in 1592 were c sables a 
cheveron between three battle-axes silver.' .1 Without doubt 
these arms are founded upon those borne by the Moseleys of 
Staffordshire (from whom, to repeat our antiquary's words, a 
descent has never been proved and is probably unprovable) ; 
for Moseley of Staffordshire bore the like with silver mill- 
picks for silver battleaxes. Official armory has seized upon a 
further occasion for asserting its famous principle that a shield 
is not so much a belonging of a single family as of the sound 
represented by its surname. By this rule Mosley of Lancashire 
has indeed a right to a version of the arms of Moseley of 
Staffordshire, but the right of other houses must be respected, 
and the shield of Mawdsley of Mawdsley, c an old family of 
minor gentry' in Lancashire, also carries cheveron and pick- 
axes, because the Lancashire village of Mawdsley sounds 
rather like the Staffordshire village of Moseley. When we 
regard these things we see that, had the heralds of the six- 
teenth century but started untrammeled by what one of 
their champions styles in magnificent contempt the c mere 
archaic survivals ' of the middle ages, we should doubtless 
enjoy a simplified armory with one shield of arms to be shared 
amongst all families whose names begin with an M. For the 
beginning with an M and the ending with a Y is surely all 
that Moseley of Staffordshire and Mawdsley and Mosley of 

Lancashire can have in common. 

* * * 

The London sale-rooms have lately been enlivened by a 
piece of household furniture which surely deserves a place in 
this column as well as ever a conquest legend or novelist's 
fancy. We quote from the Collectors Circular ', a newly-born 
weekly journal, affording its readers news of the famous 
antiquities which find their way to the market-place. A 
simple farmer at Driffield in Yorkshire discovered a corner 
cupboard c covered with dirt.' Pitying the forlorn corner 
cupboard our farmer tended it and cleaned it thoroughly. 
His reward soon shone out through the dirt. A carved name 
appeared and a carved date. The date was 1603, and one 
need hardly add that the name was William Shakespeare. 
c The piece,' says the Collector s Circular^ c is considerably over 
two hundred years old,' and in face of the date the statement 
shows that the Collector s Circular is a cautious and trustworthy 


organ. It is decorated with carved panels c of battle axes and 
other old-time implements/ which, says the Collector s Circular^ 
are c probably the work of Shakespeare himself.' On this point 
however we would not wish to commit ourselves, as we under- 
stand that Mrs. Gallup has not yet examined the old-time 

* * * 

Preceding Mrs. Gallup we have ourselves visited the relic, 
and found it standing humbly upon the floor, making a little 
Stratford-upon-Avon of a corner of a King Street sale-room. 
The sale catalogue describes it as Elizabethan, and the date of 
1 603 would just allow of the attribution, if the Elizabethans had 
not perversely regarded the year as beginning on 25 March. 
By the history books Queen Elizabeth died on 24 March, 1603, 
but the custom of the time regarded that date as 24 March, 
1602. The corner cupboard itself is a plain one, which with- 
out its carvings might have stayed in remote Driffield with- 
out hope of fame and the sale-rooms. The curious will only 
remark of it that the bard, solacing his Stratford hours with 
the pleasant art of wood-carving, chose for his subject a corner 
cupboard of a type familiar enough in the early eighteenth 
century. He was however not for an age but for all time, 
and it is unseemly that we should limit his activities with pen 
or chisel to his own circumscribed period. His signature is 
what takes the eye. Carved not in bold capitals, as is the 
wont of names upon ancient furniture, but in a handwriting 
which strengthens the authenticity of the already known 
signatures of Shakespeare, this name throws more light for 
Shakespeare students upon the signatures themselves. Many 
who are unfamiliar with letters of Elizabethan script have 
professed themselves unable to decipher letter by letter the 
Shakespearian signatures. The name upon the door shows 
Shakespeare himself in the same difficulty. Forced by his 
task to carve letters of greater distinctness than paper or 
parchment demands, Master William Shakespeare exhibits a 
lamentable inability to understand or to form the written 
letters of his period. Beautiful as the cupboard may be with 
its batdeaxes and c other old time implements,' he would have 
been well advised to allow it to anticipate the fate of his mul- 
berry tree. With the corner cupboard once safe in Boston, 
New England, the Baconian position will be mightily strength- 
ened against our illiterate old household god. 


The snipping reviewers have given us appetizing extracts 
from British Family Names ; their origin and meanings by the 
Rev. Henry Barber, M.D. and F.S.A., a book whose value has 
brought it to a second edition. As a rare mine of examples 
of what is believed concerning surnames its popularity should 
not cease with two editions. Dr. Barber's learned care seems 
to have been devoted to explaining that in the matter of 
names things are not what they seem. Barber as a surname 
must be given a possible origin in a Norman town, and Baker, 
Butcher, Carter and Tanner must have their natural jealousy 
appeased by the suggestion of other remote and gentlemanly 
possibilities applicable to their cases. 

If, as the reviewer hints, Dr. Barber is prepared to suggest 
a common origin for the names Clothier, Lowther, Lothaire 
and Luther, his book may certainly be c warmly recommended 
to the student of genealogy ' who desires to free his study 
from hampering fact. What Dr. Barber at his best can do 
for a family is shown by his magnificent effort for Waring, 
a name which old-fashioned Warings were content to derive 
from Warin, once a frequent personal name, but which Dr. 
Barber will take, if you will, from the Veringen, the tribe 
after whom the Varanger fiord is named, who formed the 
famous Varangian Guard of the Byzantine emperors ! Against 
the Varangian Guard of Warings we can make no effectual 
stand, but when Walker is explained for us as a c strange sol- 
dier/ we are constrained to defend ourselves against the 
c strange soldier ' by crying his name aloud, using it in its 
other old English sense of an interjection implying doubt or 

# # # 

Mr. G. K. Chesterton's new Life of Robert Browning is 
responsible for the following assertion — 

It is a great deal easier to hunt a family from tomb-stone to tomb-stone 
back to the time of Henry II., than to catch and realize and put upon paper 
that most nameless and elusive of all things — social tone. 

We feel sure that Mr. Chesterton does not speak idly. He 
himself or some one he knows must have followed the chase 
of an ancestor, vaulting one by one the two and twenty tomb- 
stones which must lie between us and the days of our first 
Angevin King to discover the family patriarch's name written 
large upon the last. But Mr. Chesterton is critic rather than 


genealogist, and he should be told, despite the modesty with 
which he deprecates the feat, that he alone has been favoured 
with a sight of seven hundred years and more of intact 
tombstones of one family. For us others the family tomb- 
stones may aid in the disentangling of an eighteenth century 
pedigree, may even with good luck at our backs help us through 
seventeenth or even sixteenth century difficulties, but after 
hearing of the long unbroken line of Mr. Chesterton's tomb- 
stones, the antiquarian mouth waters, and we insist upon 
having news of this family. It must be one of the score 
or so of English families which can be traced to the twelfth 
century, and it is certainly not that of Browning. Our own 
information fails : rather than follow vainly on such a quest 
we would in our despair essay to catch and realize and put 
upon paper the most nameless and elusive of things. 

* * * 

With each birthday of Lord Kingsale the legend of the 
Hat keeps festival in print, and Lord Kingsale's ' right ' to stand 
covered before his sovereign is traced to its fabulous origin in 
the story of the mythical house-ancestor John de Courcy, 
* Earl of Ulster/ whose grim face and big sword so frightened 
a French champion that he bolted under the ropes of the 
ring and never stayed his flight until safe upon the Kingstown 
packet. The insistence of the legend upon the 'Earl of 
Ulster's ' scowling brows lends colour to the story that King 
John hastily accorded the privilege of pulling a hat-brim 
down over their terrors ; but the fact that King John's day 
was unacquainted with the courtesy of hat-doffing balances 
that probability, even as the undoubted existence of King 
John is counterbalanced as a point of evidence by the equally 
undoubted non-existence of John de Courcy as c Earl of 
Ulster,' heavy weight champion of Ireland, and ancestor of 
the Kingsales, the John de Courcy upon whose history the 
tale is based dying without an earldom or legitimate issue. 
The Lords Kingsale seem to have become aware of this an- 
cestral right to play the boor at court about the time of 
William of Orange, since which time they have more than 
once asserted their privilege, rousing to emulation the Lords 
Forester who now claim a similar right upon better evidence. 
Lord Forester, whose right is yearly recognized by the King- 
sale paragrapher, is descended from an ancestor who, suf- 



fering from ringworm or some other scalp disease, was 
allowed by Henry VIII. to cover his woes with a cap or 
bonnet when he was in attendance at court. From this basis 
to the story of a right of each succeeding heir of Forester 
to put his hat on when he sees his sovereign approaching 
him is a light task for the brewer of family legends and the 
editor of peerages. 

A late alliance of the house of Hastings with the house of 
Bass has set in motion an industrious paragraph which appears 
and reappears in the society journals. The Hastings family, 
with its all but certain pedigree to the Hastings who had 
Ashill in Norfolk under Henry I. might be spared the tag 
which affirms it to be c among the few who — literally — landed 
with William the Conqueror.' But the house claims a rarer 
distinction than descent from one of those many companions 
of the Conqueror who have been selected as ancestral figures 
by respectable English families. 

Everyone may not be aware that all the Hastings family have a right to a 
quaint adjunct to their servants' liveries in the shape of a maunche or hanging 
sleeve of black velvet, given to a Hastings of olden days as a mark of gratitude 
for services rendered to his Sovereign. 

A base of sound fact is afforded to all of such statements 
by the openings c it is not generally known ' or c everyone may 
not be aware.' So far, as a rule, we are with the paragrapher. 
Students of armory are familiar with the white shield of 
Hastings and its black sleeve borne thereon for arms. At 
what date a Huntingdon was seized with the curious fancy for 
commemorating his ancient arms in a servant's sleeve, which 
must be nervous wear when soup-plates are being handed and 
removed, we cannot guess. But the idea that some ancient 
sovereign of these realms rewarded Hastings's fidelity by 
designing new liveries for his footmen or parlourmaids is not 
one which we should accept without questioning. George IV., 
before whom troopers of the Tenth stood in full uniform 
whilst the king with royal fingers pinched and demonstrated 
to an attendant tailor and cutter that pantaloons and coatee 
already at bursting point might be drawn still tighter, suggests 
himself as the Sovereign of the paragraph, but the days of his 
reign are hardly matured to the point of permitting themselves 
to be described as { olden days.' 


THOSE of us who keep our reminiscences of the last 
century will remember the famous newspaper season of 
the Armorial Gent. It began with a series of articles 
in a weekly review in which a minor prophet, to whom reck- 
lessness of grammar and construction lent a pretty air of 
earnestness, spoke and indeed screamed to the people that it 
should turn from its armorial sins. 

With cruel hand our country's shame was uncovered. 

* Arms and the Snob/ c Some Snobbish Peers,' c Snobs on the 
Judicial Bench ' — these and other attractive titles bore the 
strings of our scourge. Our eyes being opened we knew 
that judges, bishops and peers, famous soldiers and sailors, 
statesmen honoured on the front bench and squires yet more 
honoured in their own county towns, were snobs, lawbreaking 
snobs, snobs who c broke every law in existence ' with their 

* rotten ideas ' of gentility, snobs who sought in vain to cover 
their armorial nakedness with coats of arms which did not 
belong to them. 

The land aroused and anxious demanded where armorial 
salvation might be sought. The answer was thrust at them. 
Hard by, in Queen Victoria Street, the cleansing Jordan flowed ; 
a single plunge, a substantial fee to the bath attendant, and the 
< snob ' might return to his own, a shining one, a true gentle- 
man, and in the beautiful phrase of the nineties c a genuinely 
armigerous person.' The rescued snob was even besought to 
mount at once to his nursery, to take its little tenants upon his 
knees, and explain to them the nature of the miracle which 
had turned them into veritable little gentlemen and genuine 
little ladies for whom association with non-armigerous nurseries 
next door would be pollution. The word gentleman was 
taken severely in hand, and its definition by Chaucer and the 
customary use of it by people of breeding and education had 
to be abandoned by us with many other c rotten ideas,' which we 
had nourished in our c snobbery, rank, utter and absolute.' 
1 Nothing,' it appeared, 'that a man can do or say (alas ! poor 



Chaucer) can make him a gentleman . . . without a grant of 
arms ! ' 

The English people being thus forewarned our prophet 
announced that he would endeavour in his own person to put 
a stop to what in his quaint and excited English he called c the 
degradation of an abominable abuse.' In this good cause a 
dictionary and register of Armorial Gents was therefore 
printed and published, in which register the genuinely armi- 
gerous ones were herded with lawbreakers to the perpetual shame 
of the latter. Here one might read of the Armorial Gent, his 
name and address, his arms and crest, his clubs, his armorial 
children, c gentleman 1 being solemnly attached even to the name 
of the last arrived suckling. Fascinating details were added of 
the colour of the footman's undress and full dress breeches, and 
the whole paragraph set in Roman type. Side by side we 
had the crawling lawbreaker, the sickening plebeian. His 
name and address we had, his clubs, his illegal arms and 
crest, the names of his lowborn brats and the nature of his 
footman's unauthorized livery. But all this in italics, and in 
italics to remain year by year until the plebeian vanity be 
broken and until outsiders such as Squire Barnardiston of the 
Ryes be persuaded to draw the cheque for the parchment and 
seals which shall raise them to the rank legally enjoyed, as we 
understand, from Mr. Phillimore's Pamphlet by the late Mr. 
Barney Barnato. 

That admission to the ranks of the genuinely armigerous 
class was connected with a money payment was an awkward fact 
which needed all the prophet's bluster. A bold attempt was 
made to enforce that favourite fallacy of the heralds in their 
prosperous Tudor days, that a grant of arms was a patent of 
nobility, and that the new gentleman, c being made,' as old 
Harrison hath it, c so good cheap,' held by his patent a lesser but 
a like honour to the one which a peer of the realm enjoyed by 
his own patent or writ. A gentleman was a noble, a noble was 
one who bore arms, and so in the last years of Victoria the false 
antiquarianisms were revived, the mouldy fancies stirred, of 
those old heralds who to press their venal case had not stayed to 
pronounce, with crazy blasphemies, that the Lord Jesus Him- 
self was a genuinely armigerous person in right of His mother. 

Aided by the clamours and denunciations of the prophet 
a boom in coats of arms followed. The faded splendours of 
armory cry out against the phrase, but a boom it was. One re- 


calls, amongst the many amazing developments of that day, that 
a London club was planned within whose swing doors armiger- 
ous gents should mingle with none of lower degree. The 
scheme withered away on the hint from a friendly herald that 
many of the newly received minor nobility and of the gentle- 
men of coat armour were not gentlemen in that narrow sense 
demanded by the rules of a London club. The button makers 
and book-plate engravers however began to talk hopefully or 
c the modern revival of English heraldry/ but the English pub- 
lic is fickle in its eagerness. Had the boom lasted the College 
of Arms of London might have rivalled the First Church or 
Christian Science of Boston, N.E., in material prosperity, but 
the boom failed suddenly. The prophet's articles ceased to 
please. More phrases after the fashion of the precious one 
in which he made known his pride in ' that corner of West- 
minster where cluster together our national Valhalla' might 
have saved his popularity with the cynical few who besought 
him to show them a Valhallum and explain its clustering 
habits, but the many were undeniably bored and the Armi- 
gerous Gent slept the deep sleep of the forgotten boom. He 
was dead as the Missing Word. 

To meet him again by daylight in his quaint Victorian 
dress is something of a shock. But Mr. W. P. W. Philli- 
more has him by the hand and is thrusting him upon our 
notice. 1 

Inasmuch as Mr. Phillimore is known for an antiquary 
interested in certain sides of genealogy, one to whom we owe 
more than one useful handbook and the beginning of a most 
useful series of indices to probate and other records, and as 
he chooses moreover to address us in his character of a lawyer, 
we cannot refuse attention to his pamphlet, whose argument 
indeed challenges the whole position which the Ancestor has 
taken up in regard to the study of armory. 

According to our lights let us examine Mr. Phillimore's 
position with all the care we may, and see what new thing 
he has to tell us which will excuse the re-opening of the 
whole controversy concerning the right to bear arms in 

Mr. Phillimore as may be expected speaks with a voice 

1 Heralds' College and Coats of Arms regarded from a legal aspect, second 
edition, revised, by W. P. W. Phillimore, M.A., B.C.L. (London : 
Phillimore & Co., 124, Chancery Lane, 1903). 


i 5 8 


which does not bring back the shrill squall of the prophet of 
authorized armory. The folly of the c gentleman * he drops 
in so many words. The denying of the style of gentleman 
to men in high places because they possess no coats of arms 
he denounces roundly for c a pedantic impertinence/ Those 
who disagree with Mr. Phillimore are, as might be expected, 
spared the epithets of c silly fools ' and c rotten ' idiots, and no 
clustering Valhalla are twined round Mr. Phillimore's rather 
bleak prose. 

But if the voice be the voice of Mr. Phillimore the hand is 
the hand of c Mr. X.* We turn a page and the old legend 
greets us. Again we are to be persuaded that the orders of 
nobility run from King and Peer, to Baronet, Knight and 
Genuinely Armigerous Person. Throughout the pamphlet 
this important question is begged. We are told that c with 
grants of hereditary coats of arms ' the officers of arms c create 
nobiles minores? c So long, however, as the Sovereign grants 
titles, honours and arms, there must be some rules prescribing 
the mode by which they are to be granted and used.' Again 
and again is the false analogy forced upon us, the analogy of 
the grant of arms and the grant of a title of honour. 

That Mr. Phillimore is uncomfortably conscious of the 
fact that no such analogy exists is shown by his harking back 
to the weak link which makes all his argument futile. Mr. 
Phillimore and the prophet call their gods to witness that a 
grant of arms is a patent of nobility, an honour from the 
hand of the sovereign, even so much as is the patent of a 
peerage. So be it. Let Mr. Phillimore choose his candidate 
for, leaving peerages alone, the modest honours of a knight- 
hood, or of the fifth class of the Victorian Order. Let us on 
our side choose a candidate for the honour of a grant of arms, 
and let the relative success of our candidates demonstrate the 
vital difference between a grant of arms and honours which 
are in the sovereign's gift, whose distribution is within the 
sovereign's knowledge. The difference lies in the fact that 
the one is obtainable on a money payment by a suitable candi- 
date whilst the other is not. The quibble that a peer pays fees 
for the expenses of his patent is an unworthy one which Mr. 
Phillimore as a lawyer has not deigned to borrow from his 
forerunner who used it shamelessly. Those fees it need not 
be said are not the purchase money of the peer's title, but that 
the fees for a grant of arms are in effect such purchase money 


has ever been held in common belief and speech since the 
College of Arms was first incorporated. Here we have Mr. 
Phillimore's last word for his case. 

Often it is alleged that a Heralds' College patent of arms is a grant 
which may be obtained by anyone on payment of certain specified fees, the 
suggestion implied being that modern grants are worthless, as being readily 
purchasable by the man in the street for filthy lucre. Such, to those who 
know the practice of the College, is notoriously not the case, though there is 
no precisely defined rule as to whom arms may be granted or refused. The 
issue of a warrant by the Earl Marshal is purely a matter of grace, and each 
application is judged upon its merits. To persons in certain ranks of society 
arms will be granted at once without question, to others with equal certainty 
they will be denied. It is no use complaining that there is no hard and fast 
rule when we are dealing with what is a matter of grace. We might just as 
well grumble at the haphazard creation of peers, baronets and knights. 

We might indeed if we were given to understand that the 
haphazard creation of peers, baronets and knights is based 
upon a selection, upon an unknown principle, from a number 
of individuals who had proffered in exchange for those digni- 
ties a fee of an amount specified in an official tariff. The 
mystery surrounding the selection of the favoured ones by 
the Earl Marshal is probably no deep one. Mr. Phillimore 
does not tell us that high character, honourable extraction, or 
good service to the State are demanded of postulants for the 
honour of minor nobility. And the quarrels of dead and 
gone heralds make known to us many of the instances in the 
past where armorial ensigns have been assigned to most un- 
worthy names. We hear indeed some gossip of rules which 
would exclude a man engaged in retail trade from ennoble- 
ment by grant, but this can hardly be the case, for more than 
one tradesman figures in roman type in the register of the 
armigerous. In any case such a distinction is a mean and 
unworthy one. The tradesman was in the past one of the 
best and most profitable customers of the heralds, and it were 
hard to shut him out at a time which has come to see the 
countess in her bonnet shop and the peer of the realm on his 
milk walk. 

This tale of the exclusion of the unworthy will hardly help 
Mr. Phillimore in his uphill task of proving that an honour 
obtained after taking a fee to the proper quarter is comparable 
with an honour given of his own motion by the sovereign. If, 
as we move meekly to the third class end of our railway train, 



a first class passenger taunts us with the honour which he has 
been granted by the directors of the South-Eastern Railway 
Company, such honour being a ticket permitting him to travel 
in a first class saloon upon blue cushioned seats, we may justly 
reply that the honour which he boasts is no honour to our 
mind, for any one may purchase it with a first class fare. If 
Mr. Phillimore were by he would assure us that we misappre- 
hended the honour conveyed by the ticket. Money, he would 
say, has passed at the ticket office, but we ought to know 
that money passes when a peer is created. The honour is 
c purely a matter of grace, for first class tickets are not issued 
by a hard and fast rule. They are denied to sweeps, to 
butchers in their butchering gear, to private soldiers on the 
Aldershot line/ c To persons in certain classes of society 
tickets will be granted at once without question, to others 
with equal certainty they will be denied. It is no use com- 

The main contention of Mr. Phillimore's tract is easily 
put aside. He himself, knowing the impossibility of sustain- 
ing it, has preferred to talk round his subject without ven- 
turing aught in the form of a syllogism. For the rest we 
turn to the pamphlet to find that Mr. Phillimore, having said 
his word for the Armigerous Gent, leaves that interesting 
client behind him, whilst the rest of the pamphlet is given up 
to Mr. Phillimore's title subjects of Heralds' College and 
Coats of Arms. Of Heralds' College he may speak from 
some experience, although his knowledge of the historical 
practice of that corporation seems curiously superficial ; but 
when Mr. Phillimore comes to deal with coats of arms he 
wanders in a field unfamiliar to him. His first words are 
enough to convince us that Mr. Phillimore will be happier 
v/ith his parish registers and his indices than with a subject 
concerning which his investigations have not yet qualified him 
to dispute. A knowledge of armory however has never been 
reckoned a necessary detail of the equipment of those who 
would write about it. Yet Mr. Phillimore may be easily ex- 
cused. His pamphlet has but four and twenty pages, and 
folios and quartos on matters armorial have flowed from 
writers whose studies have been no less elementary. 

c It will be worth while,' says Mr. Phillimore, 6 to consider 
the origin of coat armour, and the right to bear it,' and we 
begin considering it hastily and after this wise : — 


Armorial bearings, or coats of arms, in their origin are clearly of a mili- 
tary character, but for many centuries past they have been distinctly a civilian 
honour. Great uncertainty attaches to the early beginnings of heraldry ; it 
cannot even be regarded as a settled point whether arms could be assumed by 
soldiers in the king's army without any specific authorization, or whether the 
king's own approval, exercised directly or through his officers of arms, was 
requisite. Certain it is, however, that the regulation of such matters was 
very early taken to be a matter of honour, and therefore to be dealt with by 
the royal prerogative, as the well-known case of Scrope v. Grosvenor, settled 
by King Richard II. in person over 500 years ago, amply proves. 

For us such a paragraph would in itself dispose of the 
possibility of continuing in argument with the writer concern- 
ing the ancient practice of armory. c Great uncertainty ' in- 
deed attaches to the early beginning of armory, but no 
uncertainty whatever exists as to the probability in those dark 
times of the king authorizing arms by direct approval or 
through his officers of arms. We say without hesitation that 
a writer whose view of the middle ages allows him in comfort 
to read into the days, let us say of Richard Cceur de Lion, 
the Genuinely Armigerous Person, or even the c officer of 
arms/ might have seen Garrick play Macbeth in the dress of 
a colonel of the foot guards, with a periwig and basket sword, 
without being troubled by any historical incongruity. The 
case of Scrope v. Grosvenor is an unfortunate one for Mr. 
Phillimore as a lawyer to put in. If Mr. Phillimore had read 
the case he cites he would see that it alone is enough to dis- 
pose of his officers of arms and royal authorizations far back 
in the beginnings of armory. 

In Scrope v. Grosvenor we have two knights claiming the 
same blue shield with a golden bend. Each, lying like a 
Dethick or a Writhe, puts forward an account of his right to 
the shield. As neither is hampered by the slightest regard 
for fact in the opening flourishes of his story, and each is 
aided by clerical advice, we should look, were there any shadow 
of foundation for Mr. Phillimore's belated guesses, for sworn 
evidence that King William the Conqueror or King Arthur 
of Little Britain had authorized a Scrope to take to himself 
such a shield, or at the least that White Horse Herald, 
attendant upon King Hengist, had been paid seventy-six 
pieces of red gold and ten of the white silver for a grant to a 
Grosvenor on his retiring from retail trade in battleaxes. But 
nothing of the kind is hinted or guessed at. A question of 
property in the shield is raised, and complainant and defendant 



desire to prove nothing more than user, each protesting that 
his ancestor was the first to run the yellow band across the 

Mr. Phillimore follows his hazardous suggestion of a 
leading case with these words : — 

The absence of any definite code or set of rules in early times respecting 
armory is a clear indication that the law on the subject is wholly analogous to 
the common law, i.e. it rests, not on statute, but on very ancient and long 
usage, continued down to the present time without, as far as we know, any 
break or interruption whatever. 

From Mr. Phillimore the lawyer, writing on the legal 
aspects of armory, we need ask nothing more. When Mr. 
Phillimore the antiquary has assimilated the fact that his one 
case of Scrope v. Grosvenor shows that a coat is not held from 
the Crown, but is a piece of personal property, the right to 
which depends simply upon user and the right as against 
others upon prior assumption, Mr. Phillimore the lawyer will 
doubtless abandon his v/hole argument for the right to bear 
arms resting necessarily upon official recognition or grant from 
an officer of arms. 

As it is an established fact amongst antiquaries that arms 
were assumed in the beginnings of armory even as Scrope 
and Grosvenor pleaded that their ancestors had assumed their 
shields, so also it is admitted by Mr. Phillimore that no legis- 
lation has come between Englishmen and this right to bear 
arms. The fabulous Law of Agincourt now no longer takes 
the field. For many generations it was held as of faith by 
antiquaries and others that King Harry the Fifth set a law 
upon the statute book that none who had not borne arms 
with him on Agincourt field should assume them in future 
without the royal licence through its officers of arms. In 
our days the law has been hunted for in vain, and the genesis 
of the myth has been discovered in writs issued by Henry V. 
to the sheriffs of four counties forbidding the assumption of 
arms by those men who were going with him on a certain 
< viage ' into France, the king having doubtless seen enough 
brawling over the ownership of hastily assumed coats of arms 
amongst camp swaggerers who wore their embroidered honours 
flanked with supporters of sword and dagger. The heralds' 
authority for their visitations, as is well known, depended 
upon writs whose validity ended with the visitation. There- 
fore it would seem that Mr. Phillimore agrees with us that 


the c lawbreaker ' who bears arms without official authoriza- 
tion, breaks no specific law of the land, but only the laws 
laid down in the Handbooks of Heraldry, which have as yet 
no statutory value. 

It is painful to trace from page to page the increasing 
difficulty experienced by a writer skilled in the law in seeking 
to avoid the obvious. The question is most manfully begged. 
In the middle ages, as Mr. Phillimore allows himself to 
admit, freemen assumed to themselves coat armour, but such 
assumption he labels c irregular/ and declares that no heredi- 
tary estate could be created in such arms. Here Mr. Philli- 
more is in awkward case. Here is reasoning which makes 
Scrope, St. John, Berkeley and Nevill use throughout the 
middle age c irregular ' arms in which no property could exist, 
and which gives Sir Thomas Lipton's new shield an authority 
which the King Maker's lacked. 

Caught in such a net Mr. Phillimore is helpless. He 
meets facts with feeble banter. There can be no right to use 
arms without official authority, for c obviously, if such be the 
case, since now we are all free, there is clearly no obstacle to 
a crossing sweeper taking to himself such a coat as — Gules a 
pair of brooms covered with mud proper.' We can only say 
that if the crossing sweeper, before such assumption, will con- 
sult Mr. Phillimore the solicitor concerning the legality of 
his action, refusing interference in the consultation by Mr. 
Phillimore the antiquary, he will probably learn that there 
is no obstacle whatever to his foolish design, and that a pay- 
ment of one guinea yearly to the inland revenue authorities will 
c authorize ' him c to wear and use Armorial Bearings.' 1 Our 
lawyer's last word as a lawyer is as follows : — 

Put briefly, the position is this : Would the High Court of Justice issue a 
mandamus to Heralds' College compelling the officers of arms to accept and 
record armorial bearings the claim to which is based on mere prescriptive 
usage ? If not, then, cadit questio. 

But the position is not thus but otherwise. We should 
gather put it briefly in this manner. One who claims armorial 
bearings upon prescriptive usage will hardly seek to force 
these arms into those books of the officers of arms in which 
are registered arms which have been granted after payment 
of fees. Let Mr. Phillimore ask himself a question more to 

1 We quote the terms of the Inland Revenue licence. 



the point. Would the High Court of Justice issue a manda- 
mus on the request of the officers of arms compelling one who 
bears arms upon mere prescriptive usage to relinquish such 
arms ? If not, the question of illegality falls to the ground. 

The legal argument being weak, Mr. Phillimore turns 
to railing against the bearer of c unauthorized ' arms. In 
this matter his natural kindliness and courtesy hamper him, 
and his performance is one which will not fail to draw upon 
him the contempt of his great forerunner. 

Put plainly, and treating it from a practical common-sense point of view, 
the use of a coat of arms is an implied intimation to the world at large that it 
is borne lawfully, and the uninitiated conclude that it is from Heralds' 
College. Therefore, if it be not borne by right, its use is then, to all intent, 
a mere fraud on the world at large. The fraud may be, and often doubtless 
is, perpetrated in genuine ignorance, but all the same it remains a deceit. Of 
course it would be another matter if the user boldly proclaimed that he or 
his grandfather invented the arms, and made it clear that they were not de- 
rived from the Sovereign, directly or indirectly through the College of Arms. 
But such candour is unknown. 

Mr. Phillimore surely jests with us. The very last im- 
pression which your new man desires to create by his crested 
notepaper is that his crest is 'from Heralds' College.' If he 
be a parvenu does he desire his gallery of new found an- 
cestors to proclaim to his guests their late arrival from the 
hands of the Bond Street dealer and expert ? But what fraud, 
what deceit does the ordinary man perpetrate upon his 
fellows by the use of a coat of arms ? According to Mr. 
Phillimore such arms are the distinguishing mark of a 
' minor noble.' Without inquiry in the mystery of the 
position of a c minor noble,' we may take it that some social 
rank is indicated by the term. Now a man either enjoys that 
social rank or is without it. If he possesses it, what addition 
does the official registration of his arms make to the rank 
which he admittedly has already. If he does not possess it, 
what possible alteration can a grant of arms make in his 
standing amongst his fellows. The prophet C X,' indeed, 
hinted that advancement in society followed the grant of a 
patent of arms, but he gave no details, and the society spoken 
of remains as vaguely placed as that society in which, teste 
Mr. Anstey, one dresses every evening for high tea. We 
feel sure that logic will persuade Mr. Phillimore that fraud 
and deceit are unjust words to apply to a c minor noble ' whose 


use of arms can mean no more to the world at large than a 
proclamation of his minor nobility. 

It is not by our desire that the position of the College of 
Arms and its records are dragged into this dispute by Mr. 
Phillimore. The College of Arms is one of the few venerable 
relics of the past which remain to the City of London and 
to the country. A corporation with a history of four centuries 
at its back, still pursuing its high office, the guardians of 
royal pageantry, with their blazoned registers of the descents 
and alliances of the old English gentry, now so nearly perished 
away ; such a body is not one which an Englishman, rever- 
ence for antiquity in his blood, desires to see hustled in the 
quarrels of our market place. That the mud of the street 
has splashed its old velvets is deplorable and deplored. 

The College of Arms has been wounded in the house of 
its friends, friends whose friendship, could such an aged in- 
stitution find strong voice, it would disclaim with anger and 
disdain. The grief and annoyance which the 6 X ' articles 
caused inside the old red walls of the college may be guessed 
by those who contrast the quiet of that haunt of ancient peace 
with the clamour and bluster which made the natural atmos- 
phere of this self-chosen trumpeter, whose charivari under the 
college windows must have been unwelcome music. 

The difficulty in which the corporation was placed by one 
who set himself to beat up business for the college by a cam- 
paign of insult against those who abstain from applying to it 
will be understood, and the college as a body remained silent. 
But more than one officer of arms made the world aware of 
his indignation. An article in the Saturday Review, which 
bore throughout the stamp of an official's authority, contained 
this with other harsh and just criticism of the 'revival of 
heraldry ' : — 

Those who decline to take steps which involve the payment of fees to 
professional men ... are periodically to be described by implication as im- 
postors. This, if done at all, should be done officially. In an amateur it is 
meddling ; it is a kind of scandalmongering. 

The Ancestor has no quarrel with those who allege the 
manifest convenience of a central registry in which arms may 
be put upon record by their bearers. If such a registry is to 
exist, tradition and sentiment demand that it should exist in 
the ancient office of arms and under the direction of the Earl 



Marshal and his officers, although upon the ground rather of 
its appropriateness than upon the plenary authority with 
which persistent assertion would clothe it. The right of the 
college to grant arms to those applying for such distinctions 
is not disputed by us. 

None the less the whole policy of those who support the 
Ancestor finds itself continually at variance with the new 
claims which are rashly pressed by the clamorous champions 
without the college, and also with much of the practices and 
many of the traditions within it, the practices and traditions 
which, handed down from its most evil days, are suffered to 
hamper and maim its efforts in our own time. Our own 
pages, as we acknowledge with gratitude, show that some, 
and those not the least distinguished of the present officers 
of arms, are in sympathy with modern enquiry into the archae- 
ology of genealogy and armory, and when we reluctantly 
accept Mr. Phillimore's challenge to treat the college as c a 
public institution which must expect public criticism/ and 
the c honest comment ' of which no one should be afraid, 
we are delivering no veiled attack upon a body of officers 
of the Crown, with the friendship of many of whom we are 

After the wonted manner of the militant supporters of 
official heraldry Mr. Phillimore parades each of the unanswer- 
able difficulties into which the college is thrown by the 
assertion of the extravagant claims made for it. One of 
these is the difficulty of reconciling the claim of the college 
to jurisdiction over English armory with the fact that its 
existence dates only from the end of the great period of armory. 
This is faced by the usual begging of the question. Heralds 
have existed before the college had its charter, a fact un- 
doubted by every schoolboy who remembers the herald of the 
Latins, c who stood in Rome's eastern gate,' and did his office 
in the forum. 

But when from these premises Mr. Phillimore proceeds 
to reason that the heralds before their incorporation claimed 
and exercised those ample rights which their post-medieval 
members claimed and half succeeded in exercising, he is be- 
yond the mark. That the officers of arms have been c the 
authority for armory without intermission for a far longer 
period [than i Ric. III.], a period whereof the memory cf 
man runneth not to the contrary/ is a proposition which 


Mr. |Phillimore will find easier to assert than to back. Mr. 
Phillimore's vision of the kings of arms plucking down this 
shield and setting up the other in the earlier medieval 
period is as fantastic a vision to a medievalist as could be 
the suggestion that the herald of the Latins, doing his graceful 
office with a sceptre in his hand, was also equipped with a 
modern king's at arms crown of gilded oakleaves surmounted 
with the Miserere met deus which round the forehead of a 
Dethick or Cooke would have had so poignant a significance. 
If Mr. Phillimore will examine the few early instances of 
grants of arms, he will find that they are in no case creations 
of new coats by the purchased favour of a herald or even of a 
king, but grants of the whole or some portion of a coat of 
which the property was vested, by right of user, in the 

A second difficulty, and it is a serious one, is aired by Mr. 
Phillimore when he asserts the authority as records of coat 
armour of the collections in the custody of the college. Now 
if the college be in a position to assure us that it has preserved 
a complete register of arms granted by it, a complete register 
of the families and arms recorded by them in their visitations, 
and a complete register of ancient arms recognized by it from 
time to time as borne of ancient right, it would as an institu- 
tion speak to us with far more assurance than it can at 

But how does Mr. Phillimore answer those who, with former 
officers of the college amongst them, have stoutly asserted that 
the registers are imperfect, that their fellows have gone a 
visiting in the shires and brought no record back, that gaps 
in the history of some records vitiate their authority. Such 
allegations being made, how does Mr. Phillimore meet the 
difficulty ? He does it by an airy suggestion of bad faith on 
the part of those who make these charges. 

If it be pointed out that the arms cannot be found at Heralds' College the 
rejoinder usually is an allegation that the college records are imperfect, or that 
the officials have carelessly omitted to record the coat. Tet nothing in the shape 
of evidence is ever adduced in support of the statement. (The italics are ours). 

For such an offence as is contained in this sentence we 
have appropriate punishment for Mr. Phillimore. He shall 
be Hansarded, as the House of Commons hath it. Mr. 
W. P. W. Phillimore of c Heralds' College and Coats of Arms ' 



shall be shackled to Mr. W. P. W. Phillimore of c How to 
write the History of a Family/ from the preface to which 
standard work we extract the following (it will be under- 
stood that the Heralds' Visitations are being spoken of) : — 

Political feeling prevented some from obeying the Herald's summons, and 
the social position of a few of the Heralds [alas ! poor Kings] estranged others. 
Whatever the reason may have been the later visitations show that a large 
number of those summoned entirely ignored the call, so that the visitations are 
more remarkable for the pedigrees omitted than for those included, while 
among the disclaimers may not unfrequently be found the names of families 
who were certainly of visitation rank. 

We will not therefore return to the validity and complete- 
ness of the Heralds' Visitation records until the two Mr. 
Phillimores, the scoffer and the convert, have settled their 

Mr. Phillimore then hurries to the front the most serious 
scandal which has dogged the footsteps of official heraldry. 

Without doubt the first need that an official registry and 
the official assignation of arms to postulants should meet would 
be the protection of the owner, once on record, in his un- 
challenged possession of a coat of arms. 

Let us quote Mr. Phillimore : — 

It is worth while to realize that a certain analogy may be observed between 
the use of registered trade-marks and authorized coats-of-arms. The Registrar 
of Trade-marks will, for a trifling sum, record any device submitted to him, 
provided it complies with certain definite rules, one of which is that it must 
not be the same as a trade-mark already on the register, or a colourable imi- 
tation thereof. Once registered it becomes the absolute property of the appli- 
cant, and may be assigned to others as he may think fit. And anyone infring- 
ing this mark, or using a colourable imitation thereof, may be restrained by 
an injunction in Chancery. This may, in theory, be an infringement of the 
liberty of the subject, but in practice no harm results therefrom. 

In the case of arms, there is not the same liberty for every one to adopt 
and register his home-made coat-of-arms, for coats-of-arms are not granted 
(whatever the popular idea may be) to all and sundry who apply for them, 
whilst their devolution is usually limited to the grantee's descendants according 
to certain prescribed rules, and, unlike trade-marks, they are not assignable. 
Moreover, the arms granted must, like trade-marks, be absolutely distinct from 
any other coat-of-arms already recorded. Having regard to the nature of 
arms and their object, that of providing a distinctive symbol or family mark 
or emblem, it can only be regarded as a scandal that they should be openly 
pirated by persons having no better title to them than a similarity of surname, 
or, as often happens, not even possessing that very shadowy right. It is surely 
not too much to suggest that the legal owners of a coat-of-arms or, so to say, 
an hereditary family mark, should have the right of restraining by injunction 


in the Court of Chancery, or in the Court of Chivalry, those who infringe 
their privileges and their rights, for which they, or their ancestors, have paid 
certain fees to the national revenue, as well as to the College. 

With regard to trademarks we would that the analogy- 
were more perfect. True it is that the Registrar of Trade- 
marks will record any device submitted to him, provided that 
it is not the same as a trademark already on the register or a 
colourable imitation thereof. Unhappily the reverse has long 
been the case with coats of arms. According to an evil tradi- 
tion the first care of the officer of arms has been ever to pro- 
vide his client with a c colourable imitation ' of the arms of 
the greatest of the families whose surname the client may 
bear. The nearest peerage and baronetage, the dictionary of 
Armorial Gents will demonstrate this beyond need of words. 
When Lord Russell of Killowen, an Irishman born, without 
even a tradition of English ancestry, came to the official 
fountain head for new arms, what arms were assigned to him 
but a colourable imitation of the arms of the greatest Russell 
in the three kingdoms, upon the strength of the common 
epithet surname of Russell, a surname which would allow a 
distinct family of Russell to descend from any and every red- 
headed man living at the springing up of surnames. Lord 
Russell was granted the whole arms and crest of the Russell 
dukes of Bedford, with the inconsiderable difference of a green 
border. c The head of the Irish Bedford Russells ' would be 
the commentary of any guileless armorial student who saw 
that amazing shield, and remembered that the one armorial 
difference ever adjudicated upon by the sovereign in person 
was the border, a difference declared to be an unmeet distinc- 
tion for any one not very nigh in blood to the bearer of the 
undifferenced shield. With the like armorial scandals we 
might fill our Ancestor quarter by quarter, but they are known 
to all students of such matters, excepting Mr. Phillimore only. 
Let Mr. Phillimore open his peerage at hazard and study for 
a while in silence. Let him take such an instance as the very 
striking arms granted, as we believe, under Henry VIII. to 
George Rolle of Devonshire. Let him follow George Rolle's 
pedigree and discover for himself that George's male issue is 
extinct and that the right to the shield is vested in the family 
of the Lords Clinton. With the Rolle arms and crest in mind 
let him turn to the arms and crest officially assigned to the 
family of Rolls, Lords Llangattock, a family founded in modern 



times by a fortunate dairy farmer. Now supposing that the 
arms of Rolle had, instead of being the badge of an ancient 
Devonshire family, been the trademark of a Swiss milk tin, 
does Mr. Phillimore believe that the new arms of Rolls 
would have been allowed by the Registrar of Trademarks 
to a rival firm of Swiss milkmen ? Such is our opinion of 
the watchfulness of the trademark department that we believe 
the latter shield and crest would have been rejected forth- 
with as a c colourable imitation.' Lord Tennyson's arms, a 
colourable imitation of the arms used by a family of Tenny- 
son with whom no relationship could be shown, are avowedly 
based upon the impudent piracy by the latter of the shield 
of a knightly family called Denys, and with these three shields 
may be compared the official quartering of the arms of yet 
another c Tenison ' family borne by their descendant Lord 

Strange it is that in every point of traditional armory 
Mr. Phillimore, who would instruct us, stumbles as he goes. 
The main difference between a coat of arms and a trademark 
is that the coat is not assignable. Now Mr. Phillimore has 
been at pains to show us, as a lawyer, that the law of arms 
is based upon ancient custom. So far from coats of arms 
being by ancient custom unassignable, our early documents 
concerning them teem with instances of the unchallenged 
practice of owners of shields assigning at will their property 
in them to others by simple deed of conveyance. Needless to 
say we find ourselves most heartily in agreement with Mr. 
Phillimore as to the scandal caused by the open assumption of 
arms by persons with no better title than a similarity of sur- 
name. Such an instance he will find in an article in the current 
number of the Ancestor concerning the official allowance to the 
Wiltshire family of Kaynell of Bridstone of the ancient arms of 
Cayvill of Cayvill in Yorkshire. Such an instance, let us sug- 
gest, he will find in the modern grant to each of two different 
families named Phillimore of clumsily differenced versions of 
the arms and crest of the Filniers, baronets in Kent. Mr. 
Phillimore's suggestion that the grief caused by the piracy of 
one's ancient arms springs from the fact that one's ancestors 
may have spent good money in acquiring those distinctions 
does not move us to the same degree. 

Let us go back to our quotations : — 

Another complaint frequently made is that the arms granted in recent 


years are usually irretrievably bad in their design, and that they betray un- 
mistakably their modern origin. 


The one great merit of Victorian heraldry is the ease with which, as a 
rule, it is possible for an expert to date it. 

It is something to learn that Victorian heraldry possesses a 
merit, however modest, in the eyes of at least one observer. 
But it is a qualified merit. Armory is after all only valuable 
as a distinction because it speaks of the past. The Mr. Jackson 
of yesterday is become Lord Allerton. The new honour 
gives him no licence to array the Yorkshiremen of his barony 
under the square banner of his newly authorized arms, but it 
is an honour because in some sort it carries with it the subtle 
flavour of the middle ages. If any one doubt this, and protest 
that the honour is all modern and lies in the elevation to the 
Second Chamber, we will but ask who would accept a barony 
of Clapham Junction or the earldom of the Tottenham Court 
Road, titles which would have great merit to Mr. Phillimore's 
mind in the ease with which they might be dated. A crest 
and coat of arms are in like manner valuable because they call 
back pleasantly the idea that they are, in name at least, to be 
borne on a steel helm and over a mail hawberk. Let us 
imagine that with the right to bear arms came the right in 
some high ceremony to bear them in the old manner. New 
armour would have to be hammered for the new squires and 
knights. According to Mr. Phillimore the charm of such 
armour would lie in its being forged to shapes indicating in 
steel the tall hat, the morning coat, and the neat but un- 
romantic trouserings of Piccadilly. But the new man who 
appeared in a coronation pageant in armour recalling the 
fifteenth century would be cheered by the crowd, although 
Mr. Phillimore would blame him for c a sham antique,' a 
c fraudulent ' masquer, and if we know aught of human nature 
those apparelled by the direction of Mr. Phillimore and the 
honest officers of arms would never show their shining skirts 
in public. 

And armory, besides being a recollection of the middle 
ages, is based upon the simple balance of design. It is not 
pretended that the Victorian mannerisms which so take 
Mr. Phillimore are aught more than the inept failures of bad 
taste or bad design. Mr. Phillimore in defence of his principle 
should hurry the heralds and their designers. They are not 



modern enough. They are still of the period of the horsehair 
sofa. We should by this time be able to recognize a twentieth 
century grant of arms by its absorption of the true modern art, 
the modern art of the New Gallery table with legs in the air 
to balance those on the ground, of the New Art clock which 
amidst its writhing curves conceals the time of day as though 
it were a guilty and inartistic secret. 

Back again to our quotations. When Mr. Phillimore 
has learned more of the practice of heraldry he will shudder at 
some of them. 

It may be worth while, therefore, to examine some of the complaints which 
have of late years been put forward with much persistence. One complaint, 
that the heralds grant to new men the arms of ancient feudal families, must be 
met by a simple negation. It is not done. 

Mr. Phillimore will forgive our persistence, and will allow 
us to put aside his simple negation : in the face of notorious 
fact it is amazing in its simplicity. What the officers of arms 
are doing at this passing moment we will not presume to 
say, and Mr. Phillimore in using the word c grant ' has doubt- 
less no intention of quibbling with us over a word, he being 
aware that an unwarranted grant of an ancient shield to a 
new pretender would in the nature of things be more grace- 
fully styled an c allowance ' or c confirmation.' On this point 
we will ask Mr. Phillimore three questions or four. 

In putting this disclaimer upon paper, was he aware that 
the undifFerenced arms of the royal house of Stewart have 
been allowed to a Norfolk family of somewhat similar name 
but with no drop of the blood of the illustrious house which 
bore those arms, and that those arms remain still on record, 
and are still borne by official authority ? 

Was he aware that the undifFerenced arms of the Howard 
ancestors of the dukes of Norfolk have been officially assigned 
to the descendants of a Dublin doctor who put forward no 
claim to them but the possession of one of the commonest of 
English surnames ? 

Does he know that the Irish family of Morres bear with 
official sanction the arms and name of the proudest house of 
Christendom, of the house of Montmorency, and this on the 
authority of a childish fable served up in the nineteenth 
century ? 

Are these examples enough, or must we remind him that 
in an earlier number of the Ancestor he will find the Lyon 


Office also joining the sport and lightheartedly granting the 
undifferenced arms of Colt, baronet of Essex, to the banker 
Coulthart, whose preposterous pedigree, derived by genea- 
logical ingenuity from Coulthartus of the Grampian Hills, a 
lieutenant of Agricola, has no explanation for this armorial 
mystery ? 

These and a thousand cases like them are the common- 
places of the story of official armory in these islands and may 
explain in some measure to Mr. Phillimore why antiquaries 
and historians, and other lawless ones, are inclined to look 
curiously at the hall-marks of those authorized arms which he 
quaintly styles c personal distinctions from the recognized 
sources of honour/ 

Throughout his pamphlet we are made to feel that 
Mr. Phillimore's heart is not with the patient antiquary. For 
the grubbers in the dust-heaps of the past he keeps a lightly 
veiled contempt. His last word is so remarkable, so charac- 
teristic of the whole of that school of which to our surprise, 
and can we say to our pity, he has chosen to be the mouthpiece 
and legal adviser. 

Hear then Mr. Phillimore for himself and his clients : — 

Heraldry is a living science, and far more concerned with the twentieth 
century than with the archaic survivals of the fifteenth. 

Alas for the indiscretion of Mr. Phillimore. In an un- 
watched moment, in a hastily written line, he has spoken that 
truth which his new friends have concealed so long. Each 
and all of the writers of the manifestoes of the c legal school of 
heraldry ' has made, in his first paragraph at least, an unwilling 
genuflection to the ages of the tournaments, to the ages of 
Carlaverock and Cressy, of Falkirk and Agincourt. Each 
scheme for the c revival of heraldry ' has invited those middle 
ages to lend their name to the first board meeting. The days 
of chivalry must for decency's sake be invoked even in the 
prospectus to a new edition of Armorial Gents or The Right to 
buy Arms. Mr. Phillimore alone has the courage of his heart's 
belief. For him the splendours of the tournament crests and 
trappers, the many-coloured pomp which made a stately 
pageant of every medley of stabbers, are trumpery for the 
antiquary, c archaic survivals ' which do but hamper the c living 
science ' of the makers of bookplates and livery breeches, of 
the compilers of dictionaries of genuinely armigerous persons. 
The ancient shield with its knightly memories is pushed 




aside as though in fear lest its associations should in popular 
estimation injure the attractions of the brand new shield which 
can be furnished forth to the aspirant for c minor nobility. ' 

Not in the name of our review alone, but as we believe in 
the name of every antiquary or scholar who has given his time 
to the study of old English armory we protest against this 
button-makers' gospel. 

Armory is not a living science. Armory was stricken 
when the medieval period had its death wound, and as a living 
thing it cannot be said to have survived our last civil war. 
The ingenuities of the official guardians of heraldry have re- 
duced the arms of our English families to a welter of contra- 
dictions and misapprehensions. We wear no coats of arms on 
our backs, we carry neither shields on our arms nor crests on our 
heads. When the streets of London were full of bunting for 
the crowning of the king, no single citizen displayed his banner 
or flew his pennon. As if to mark the end of English armory 
our king himself gave way to the pleadings of those house- 
holders who had purchased ' royal standards ' and allowed 
every house on his procession way to display, if it would, that 
banner of the royal arms which, had armory been a living thing, 
would have meant the presence of the king under it. 

What is this living science for which Mr. Phillimore is 
concerned ? The c crests ' on our spoons and notepaper, the 
arms which the coachpainter sets on a carriage panel, the 
pretty trivialities of the stationer's bookplate, are these the 
weighty matters to which we must give our attention to the 
neglect of £ archaic survivals ' ? We say deliberately that for 
us and for a school which, though small compared with the 
greater public of Mr. Phillimore and Mr. X, must yet be 
reckoned with, there is nothing in the modern practice of 
armory which should appeal to any soul with wits above the 
level of a postage stamp collector's. 

For us at least the study of the use of arms in its native 
age, an age which has passed utterly away, is all that remains 
for the student of armory. By such study we shall add in 
some humble measure to the knowledge of the history of our 
land, and looking away from a grey and ordered time we shall 
delight our eyes with the fantastic beauty of that true armory, 
chief tirewoman to those dead years which once went in 
scarlet with ornaments of gold on their apparel. 



OF the great series of medieval Calendars now being issued 
by the Public Record Office none, probably, will be more 
welcome to the student of county history, indeed to all gene- 
alogists and topographers, than the Catalogue of Ancient Deeds. 
The salient feature of this Catalogue is the novelty of the 
information to be found within its pages. For while the 
various c rolls ' in our priceless national collection have long 
been familiar to antiquaries, who have made copious use of 
them, the deeds here calendared have remained for practical 
purposes unsorted and all unknown. The two officers to 
whom we are indebted for this valuable volume are Mr. J. M. 
Thompson and Mr. A. Story Maskelyne, the latter having 
prepared the really notable indexes nearly four hundred 
columns in length. 

Whether we consider the scholarly care with which the 
abstracts of the deeds have been made, or the vast labour 
bestowed on identifying the places named in them, we have 
equal cause for gratitude to those who have given us this 
book. It is particularly satisfactory to find that the existence 
of seals is always noted ; 2 and, although the description of 
arms is not within the compass of the Catalogue, the deeds 
can always be examined by those in search of such details as 
they are in public custody. Another merit of this volume is 
the care with which endorsements are recorded, for contem- 
porary endorsements often throw a further light on a person 
or place mentioned in the body of a deed. Thus, for instance, 
the endorsement of A. 7358 identifies as c Oggerum dapi- 
ferum ' the c Ogerus de Cabulian ' who receives a grant, in 
this early undated deed, from Holy Trinity Priory, London, 
and who, it should be noted, has a c clerk,' Edward. Now 
c Oger Dapifer ' (a name, by the way, omitted in the Index) 
was a man of some importance in the days of Henry II., one 
of that king's typical officers. With the assistance of A. 1878, 
1978 in this series, which relate to his son and namesake, we 

1 Catalogue of Ancient Deeds, vol. iv. (Stationery Office). 

2 For instance, we have Thomas Poynings, ' lord St. John,' using the arms 
of St. John in 1398 at an interesting period in the descent of the barony. 




can now connect him with the Cornish c Cabulian,' an impor- 
tant manor in Cardinham and Warleggon, of which the name 
is still preserved in Cabilla. His heirs appear to have held 
there by the serjeanty of presenting a cape of c gresenges r 
when the king came into Cornwall. It would take us too far 
afield to trace Oger in Norfolk and in Suffolk, in London 
and in Kent, as in Devon and in Cornwall ; but one may note 
that, although Mr. Maskelyne has made a special study of 
names, he is surely mistaken in giving cross references under 
i Orgar ' and c Oger,' for the former was as distinctly a native 
as c Oger ' was a Breton name. 

Among the families on which this volume is peculiarly rich 
in deeds are the Catesbys of Northamptonshire, famous in 
connection with c Gunpowder Plot,' and the Cleres of Ormsby> 
Norfolk. From the twelfth century to the sixteenth, from 
barons of the realm to humble folk, these deeds lightly range. 
In 13 10 we have the settlement on the marriage of John de 
St. Amand, of a race of barons, to Margaret daughter of c Sir 
Hugh le Despenser the father, 1 including manors in Ireland, 
Devon, Gloucestershire and Berks. In 1589 we find our- 
selves in Warwickshire, among yeomen and butchers, with a 
deed bearing the grantor's mark, which gives us this pedi- 
gree :— 

John Suffolk= Alice living 
of Nuneaton I 1589 

I M (2) 
Henry=Frances=Thomas Ford 
living 1589 

Edward under 
age 1589 

Or again a few early deeds provide this descent : — 


Henry Fitz=Joan dau. of 
Reiner I Geoffrey Blund 

I . (1) (2) 

Saer Fitz Henry= Mary = William 
living 1221 de Ores 2 

John = Jean de Salerne 
living 1273 

1 This supplies an important correction, under ' St. Amand,' to The Com- 
plete Peerage. 

2 But this name is read as i Cre ' on p. 15, and indexed accordingly. 


The deeds which give us this pedigree relate to the manor 
of Shenley, Herts, which passed from the above John to 
Adam de Stratton, and, on Adam's forfeiture, to the Crown. 

One of the discoveries resulting from the publication of 
this volume is the origin of the famous (or infamous) Adam 
de Stratton. More than twenty pages of the preface to the 
Red Book of the Exchequer are devoted to the crimes and the 
career of this c notorious ' person, of whom we read in lurid 
words, more suggestive of the c penny dreadful ' than of the 
Master of the Rolls' Series, that c behind this impenetrable 
mask there lurked a demon's strength of passion, an insensi- 
bility for human suffering, and a total disregard of every 
moral tie.' 1 The eventual forfeiture of all the possessions he 
had indefatigably acquired brought to the Crown a great mass 
of the title-deeds relating to them, of which a goodly number 
are found in the present volume. In spite of the elaborate 
treatment which he receives in the above preface, it is there 
confessed that c of his parentage and education we know 
nothing, except that he was a clerk,' and that he c was probably 
a native of the village of Stratton in Wilts.' 2 The first dis- 
covery that we make from these pages is that in the numerous 
deeds relating to his acquisition of lands he is styled indiffer- 
ently Adam c de Stratton ' or c de Argoges ' ; the second is 
that he appears in one of them as c Adam the clerk son of 
Thomas de Argwillis of Stratton.' As it is evidently in the 
later deeds, that is, in those subsequent to the death of 
Henry III., that he is chiefly styled c de Stratton,' we may 
fairly infer that when he began by buying land down in his 
native Stratton and the neighbourhood he was known by the 
name of his family, but that, up in London, rising to a position 
of official eminence, he was known by the name of the village 
from which he came. All such indications of the practice of 
the time in the matter of surnames are of distinct interest 
and value. The next point is the name of his father. Mr. 
Maskelyne boldly treats c Argoges ' and c Argwillis ' as identi- 
cal. Hazardous as this might seem, it is possible to establish 
the fact that the family were indifferently called by either 
name. 3 In 1166 Adam de Port returned among his knights 
Roger the son of Ralf and c Odo de Arguges.' A deed of 

1 Red Book of the Exchequer, p. cccxxv. 

2 Ibid. pp. cccxv.— cccxvi. 

3 Etymologically, however, the names, of course, are distinct. 


Adam de Port calendared in this volume confirms c grants 
made by Roger son of Ralph his knight,' and its first witnesses 
are £ Odo de Arguill[is] 1 and Ralf his son ; other witnesses 
are clergy from Stratton itself and the neighbouring parishes 
of Stanton Fitzwarren and Rodbourne Cheney. Again, in 
12 12 Ralf c de Arguilla ' (sic) holds c Strattone per dimidium 
feodum, de eschaeta Adae de Port, in Kintone 1 ; and Ralf c de 
Aigville ' (who is indexed as a separate person by the editor) 
is entered as holding 1 dimidium militem in Strattone ' of the 
c Honor de Kingtone quod fuit Adae de Port. 2 We see then 
that Adam de Stratton was a member of a family which had 
held by knight-service, for some generations, at Stratton 
St. Margaret's, and had been known indifferendy as c de 
Arguges ' (or c Argoges') and { de Argwillis.' Argouges, one 
may add, is on the Breton border in the south-west corner of 
Normandy, while Argueil (if that is represented by Arguillis) 
lies in its extreme east. 

To the genealogist the indentures of marriage will doubt- 
less prove the most attractive documents in this great collection. 
A deed of 16 December, 1438, shows us an agreement made at 
Lanhadron, Cornwall, between c Rauf Reskymer, squyer,' and 
Thomas Arundel, knight, by which Ralf s son William is to 
marry c Felyp ' daughter of Sir Thomas and Lady Elizabeth 
his wife. Sir Thomas is to have the c kepyng and the gov- 
ernance ' of them c tille that thei kune rewele ham by reson 
and discrecion,' and if 1 Felyp ' dies before the marriage 
William is to marry her sister Elizabeth, so that we seem to 
be dealing with a case of child-marriage. c Dame Johaan the 
wif of Thomas Carmynou squyer ' is also mentioned in the 
document as living, and Sir Thomas buys the marriage for his 
daughter for £66 13J. \d. plus a promise to prosecute a suit 
in Ralf s name for the manor of c Cabilye,' which if recovered 
is to be setded on the young couple after the knight has 
recovered his costs out of it ; 3 a truly businesslike arrange- 

1 Ibid. p. 489. I have been able to show elsewhere {Genealogist [N.S.], 
xvi. 10, 12) that the place in question is Kington, Herefordshire, though in 
one place it is identified by Mr. Hubert Hall as 1 Kington, co. Dorset ' and 
in another as somewhere or other in ' co. Wilts ' (Red Book of the Exchequer, 
p. 1224). Such is 1 Advanced Historical Teaching' ! 

2 Ibid. p. 600. 

3 The estate seems to have been still in dispute in 1490, according to A. 
10181, in which the place occurs as ' Cabyle.' Mr. Maskelyne, I see, makes it 
4 Carbilly ' so it cannot be the * Cabilla ' of which I have already spoken. 


ment, it must be admitted. A deed of about a month later 
(A. 1033 1) records that Ralf has duly handed over his son 
to Sir Thomas to be married to his daughter Elizabeth (not 
c Felyp ') and had settled on them lands worth £10 a year c yn 
the manerys of Trelewyth bysydes Redruth and Hellugan ' and 
in other places. Another marriage indenture relating to the 
same family is that of 13 December, 1498, 'made at Tre- 
therff wythyn the Counte of Cornwall, ' by which John 
Reskymer, Esquire, undertakes to marry Katharine daughter of 
John TretherfF the elder, Esquire, who is bound down to settle 
on them lands to the amount of £4 (!) a year, to pay his son- 
in-law £40 on the marriage, and to c bere the hole charge off 
mete and dryng at the day of maryage.' A further illustration 
of the businesslike aspect in which marriage was regarded by 
our forefathers is afforded by the deed of the same family some 
two centuries earlier, when Richard de Reskemer sells to 
Alice widow of Randulf de Tynten, in full county court at 
Lostwithiel (1288), c the marriage and wardship of the body of 
Joan daughter and heir of John son of William Durant ' 
for £6 1 3 s. \d. 

The earliest of the marriage agreements in this volume, 
it would seem, is that of 1240, by which William de Trom- 
pinton and Amicia his wife undertake to marry honourably 
Maud daughter of Christian de Drayton within two years, 
unless by her own fault (nisi per earn $teterit\ or, in default, 
would give her 2 virgates in Drayton, claimed by their daughter 
Parnell. With another thirteenth century indenture we return 
to Cornwall, for this document recites that Thomas de Tre- 
lanvighan has married his daughter Nichole (Nicholad) to 
Paschasius de Treredenec, whose Christian name suggests the 
Cornish c Pascoe.' If the said parties were unwilling or un- 
able to live together at Tredinnick as stipulated, then Master 
Ralf de Treredenec was to give them certain crops and beasts 
and c half the household implements, except copper and brass 
vessels, silver and china cups and spoons, books, money and 
jewels ; so that they could set up house where they pleased.' 
The articles mentioned are almost startling, considering the 
position of the parties, at so early a date as 1295. An inter- 
esting example of the ancient practice of assigning dower at 
the church door is afforded by A. 9846, an indenture of 1437, 
in which William Pollard assigns to c Elizabeth doghtyr of 
Hewe Lamplew at the tyme of esposelys halowyd and made 



be twyx me and hyre at the kyrke dore of Seynt Olave be syde 
the Abbey of Seynt Maryis of York 1 certain tenements for her 
life c in the name of all hyre dower/ 

An agreement of 1420 is found both in French (A. 8470) 
and in Latin (A. 10408) with slight variations. Attention 
may be directed to it, because in the English version the latter 
Richard Ryvell, the prospective bridegroom, is described as 
1 son-in-law ' of William Attilbrough, the mayor of Coventry ; 
the abstract of the French one (to which we are referred) styles 
him c stepson ' (fitz en ley). This is obviously a point of some 
importance to genealogists, and we think that c stepson ' would 
be right in both cases, for Richard is expressly referred to as 
son of Joan, William's wife. One more of these indentures 
may be mentioned because of its importance for county his- 
tory. In June, 1401, Nicholas c Benton/ ancestor of the 
Wiltshire house of Baynton, makes a settlement on the 
marriage of his son Nicholas with Joan daughter of Sir John 
Roches, knight, and c Willeame ' his wife. This marriage had 
a great effect on the fortunes of his family, and the indenture 
affects manors in four counties, one of which (in Sussex) is 
ingeniously identified by Mr. Maskelyne. 

The most remarkable of the earliest deeds dealt with in 
this volume are those relating to the Priory of Holy Trinity, 
London, of which the Record Office possesses an extraordinary 
number belonging to the twelfth century, but there is one 
document belonging to a house in the neighbourhood of what 
is now familiar as Charing Cross. This is a grant by 'Turold 
warden of the leprous maidens (infirmarum puellarum) of the 
hospital of St. James by Charing (Cherringam) and the breth- 
ren and sisters of the same place/ It is apparently of the 
reign of Richard I., and the first witness is c Henry son of 
Ailwin, mayor of London,' whose name occurs several times in 
this volume. One of the Holy Trinity deeds illustrates the 
origin of the name c Soper,' for in it c Richard de Essex le 
Soper (soparius) ' bestows upon that house a rent from his two 
shops (sopis) in Cheap. We are not, however, quite satisfied 
that the Latin should be rendered c le Soper,' as it also is in 
A. 7296. But names with Mr. Maskelyne are clearly a 
favourite hobby, and the long section of his index of subjects 
which he devotes to their origin from occupations or other 
sources will be found of much interest. One may call atten- 
tion, by the way, to the name of 6 Peticru, Petticrue, Petecru, 


Petigrewe, Pedecru, Petycru, Pedycru ' (as the variants are 
arranged by Mr. Maskelyne), because its origin is surely to be 
found in that c crane's foot/ which from its shape, as I have 
elsewhere explained, gave name to the 'pedigree ' which, at 
first, resembled it in form. A confirmation by Alan de Bloyou, 
lord of Treyndwal, of a release made by Sir Ralf Bloyou his 
father to Robert de Brevannek, son of Clarice, in frankmarriage 
with Rose, Ralf s niece, brings before us a curious name, which 
can be traced back in Cornwall to the Conqueror's day. 

As examples of the little pedigrees supplied by some of 
these deeds, the following, perhaps, may be acceptable. 

Nicholas de=Katherine 

William Henry Robert = Margaret Julia 

dau. of Edmund 
de Watford. She 
mar. 2nd Simon 
de Cresholm 

John son of=Emma= John 
William de I Catesby 

Swyneford !] 


Henry Richard Bracebridge 

Richard Bartholomew J°hn William Harwell 

Martin | I I 

I I I I 

Thomas = Juliane Symond = Elizabeth 

In the case of this last pedigree the deed (Mich. 1493) 
informs us that John Bracebridge, Esquire, settles lands in War- 
wickshire on his son and undertakes to provide him with c all 
maner apparell of the array ' for his wedding day, while the 
bride's father makes himself responsible for c all maner coste 
of metes and drynkes ' on the same occasion. Two early 
Dover deeds supply a pedigree of three generations : — 

William the clerk 
of St. Margaret's 

Ralf Thomas=Eilewise 

1 I 

Thomas Richard Susan 



Still earlier is the Arsic descent supplied by A. 6495, a document 
discussed elsewhere in these pages under the head of c Castle- 
Guard/ c Manser Arsic ' was the baron of that name living 
under Henry II. 

1 1 

Arsic Aubrey Arsic 

Margaret= Manser Arsic William Arsic 

The name Aubrey suggests a connection with the family of 
De Vere ; and it is observable that a Geoffrey Arsic held of Earl 
Aubrey in 11 66 two knights' fees, 1 while a Guy de Vere was 
then holding, in succession to his father, of Roger Arsic under 
Manser Arsic. 

Mr. Maskelyne's c Index of subjects ' enables us to dis- 
cover the many points which his deeds help to illustrate. The 
most notable, perhaps, of these, is the constitution of a knight's 
fee in Winterbourne Basset, Wilts. Walter de Dunstanville 
grants in fee to Reginald de Daivill, in Winterbourne Basset, 
Wilts, c 8o acres in one field and 82 acres in the other' (referring 
to cultivation on c the two-field system '), provided for Reginald 
from his demesne, c and delivered for 100 shillings' worth of 
land by the lawful oath of the men of that town, with pasture 
for the oxen of two ploughs, in common with his own oxen, and 
pasture for 200 sheep with his own sheep, to hold by the service 
of half a knight.' Further, Reginald is to do c the full service 
of one knight, when, as he has promised, he shall have pro- 
vided the said Reginald other hundred shillings' worth of land.' 
Here we have — apparently in the reign of Richard I. — the 
actual creation, in instalments, of a knight's fee. Its value, it 
will be observed, is only £10 a year, and its area singularly 
small. The land was clearly lord's demesne which had lain 
scattered, in acre strips, about the open c fields,' and, to judge 
from the mention of the oxen, this land must have been 
reckoned as two ploughlands of some 80 acres each. With 
this deed may well be compared one of rather later date by 
which William Marshal, the great Earl of Pembroke, enfeoffs 
one of his household, Thomas Basset, 2 in £10 worth of land in 

1 Compare Geoffrey de Mandevtlle, p. 190. 

2 He is mentioned as an English knight in Pbistoire de Guillaume le 


his manor of Speen, Berks, c together with a whole yoke (cat uca) 
of six oxen and two horses appraised at 60 shillings and 100 
sheep appraised at 30 shillings ' ; the whole to be held by the 
service of c one fourth of a knight.' Here we have an annual 
value of 10 pounds represented by the service, not of one 
knight (as in the previous document) but of one quarter of 
that service. We also note, as still in use, the great Domesday 
plough-team of eight beasts ; and lastly we glance at the 
witnesses to this deed and recognize in the first Henry Fitz 
Gerold, a faithful knight of the great earl, who was present 
with him at his death, 1 and in the third John de Erley (as Mr. 
Maskelyne renders c Erlega '), the now famous c Jean d'Erlee,' 
as he is styled in the poem with which he was so closely con- 
nected, 2 who was, with Henry FitzGerold, one of the earl's 
executors, and who derived his name from Early in another 
part of Berks. 3 

Some disappointment has been expressed at the large 
number of undated deeds, of which the editors have not 
attempted to determine, from internal evidence, the date. But 
those who have most experience of such documents must be 
well aware of the confusion that may spring from an erroneous 
date and of the time and labour too often required to deter- 
mine the right one. The rapid yet accurate cataloguing of so 
vast a collection of deeds must be the first consideration and 
this would be seriously hampered by the task of ascertaining 
their dates.* Among the thousands of names in these pages an 
occasional slip is inevitable ; but the only really serious error 
is the strange c Gilbert son of Peter, earl of Essex,' who 
so appears in text and index ; for c Geoffrey Fitz Piers ' (as he 
is usually called) is a well-known man. 5 As there is no mark of 
extension, one is led to expect a scribal error, but this is not so ; 
the document, we find, only gives the initial c G.' The opening 
entry of the c Index of subjects' ( c Albemarle, inheritance of 
earls of, bought by Crown ') also requires correction, for the 
inheritance was that of the Redvers family, Earls of Devon. 6 

1 He is mentioned some half a dozen times in the French poem. 

2 See Fhistoire de Guillaume le Marechal (ed. Meyer), vol. iii. pp. xiv-xix. 

3 Testa de Nevill. 

4 The Calendar of documents preserved in France, vol. i. was greatly retarded 
by the heavy labour of ascertaining date-limits from internal evidence. 

5 See Dictionary of National Biography, xix. 192-4. 

6 See Genealogical Magazine, i. 1 et seq. 


In place-names, 'Dudeno' and c la Lee* might have been identi- 
fied, occurring as they do in connection with Elmdon ; c Bur- 
nam ' also is unidentified, but Mr. Maskelyne may have reasons 
for rejecting its identity with Westbourne {Burna)} These, it 
will be seen, are trifling emendations in a work of such dimen- 
sions as this. If we were to venture a suggestion it would be 
that the names of all the witnesses should be printed, but this 
has doubtless been duly considered and sufficient reasons given 
for the course adopted. 


1 See my 1 Henry I. at " Burne " ' (Eng. Hist. Rev. x. 536). 


IN the " Lords' Reports on the Dignity of a Peer " consider- 
able attention was devoted to the document which forms 
the subject of this article. For Cruise, in the first edition 
(1810) of his well known treatise on dignities, had asserted 
that c the most ancient proof of a sitting in Parliament is the 
letter written by the Nobles in Parliament in 29 Edw. I. to 
the Pope, respecting the sovereignty of Scotland,' although in 
his second edition (1823) he considerably modified this asser- 
tion, stating that c the letter to the Pope is not now held to be 
authentic.' The Lords' Committee took every pains to secure 
exactness of text in the version they printed, and, while dis- 
posed to treat the document as a copy rather than an original, 1 
they went so far as to record this guarded conclusion : — 

Attempts have been also made to use these Instruments for a further pur- 
pose, namely to prove a sitting in Parliament under a Writ. Perhaps they 
might be used for this purpose where the issue of the Writ itself can be shown ; 
but the Committee apprehend that these Instruments under the circumstances 
stated, cannot properly be used both to prove the issue of a Writ, which does 
not otherwise appear, and also a sitting under such Writ. If the Instrument 
could be so used the heirs of Walter Beauchamp, styled Dominus de Alcester, 
whose name does not appear on the Roll of Writs for this Parliament, or for 
any prior or subsequent Parliament, till his descendant was created, by Patent, 
Baron Beauchamp of Powyk, might claim by descent a personal dignity of 
the 28th of Edward the First, insisting on these Instruments as proving both 
his Writ and his Sitting in Parliament. 

This objection would apply also to 4 Nicholas de Carru, 
dominus de Muleford,' whose appearance among the c barons ' 
of the letter was mentioned in the last number of the Ancestor 
and to at least four others, Richard Talbot, John de Hodeles- 
ton, John le Breton and John de Kingeston. Moreover there 
were eight more of the ' barons ' who had not, at the date of 
this letter, ever been summoned to Parliament, and seven- 
teen at the least who had not been summoned to that Lin- 
coln parliament to which the letter is assigned. Thus there 

1 It is not generally known that there are, as explained below, two MSS. 
of this letter, both with seals of their own and both formerly preserved in 
the chapter-house at Westminster. 




were fully thirty-one of the c barons ' whose names were 
affixed, for whom we shall look in vain among those sum- 
moned to the parliament in which their presence is supposed 
to be proved by the appearance of their names in this letter. 

There would seem to have been an idea, at one time, of 
utilizing this document in support of the doctrine of barony 
by tenure owing to the curious territorial additions to the 
barons' names ; but these are now recognized to be arbitrary 
and of no importance. 1 It was not, indeed, till the present 
year that the admissibility of the Barons' letter in evidence, as 
proof of sitting, came definitely at last before the House of 
Lords. In the claim to the baronies of Fauconberg, Darcy 
(de Knayth) and Meinill, it was one of the two proofs of 
sitting relied on for the original Lords Fauconberg, and such 
was the importance attached to it that, in their c Supplemen- 
tary Case,' the claimants reprinted in full the lengthy obser- 
vations on the subject by Sir Harris Nicolas, their counsel 
adding an elaborate argument to prove what no one, I believe, 
denies — that neither the letter nor the seals are a forger's 

The real point at issue was not that of genuineness, but 
that of admissibility. Although Nicolas is styled in the c Case ' 
' one of the most eminent of the authorities who have written 
upon Peerage Law,' it must be remembered that he was him- 
self actively engaged in Peerage cases and that his whole argu- 
ment on the letter is an obviously partisan one. In the pre- 
face to his work will be found a passage which is not cited in 
the c Case,' and which runs as follows : — 

references will be found to the proofs which the printed Rolls of Parlia- 
ment afford of the Sittings in Parliament of Barons of the Realm — an object 
of considerable importance to a work of this kind, because, without such proof, 
no title which originated in a Writ of Summons can be successfully claimed, 
or, in other words, can now be deemed to exist. 2 Under the same head some 
observations are submitted tending to establish that the Letter written by the 
Barons who were assembled in the Parliament which met at Lincoln in Feb- 
ruary, 1 300-1, anno 29 Edw. I. should also be received as an undoubted 
proof of Sitting in Parliament ; and the very material circumstance that the 

1 They may perhaps be compared with the pseudo-titles of some earls 
derived, not from their county, but from their chief seat, as in the well 
known instance of ' Strigul ' (Chepstow) being used as his title by the Earl of 

2 This doctrine, though well established, was challenged by the claimants 
in the above case. 


admission of that Letter would establish the existence of many Baronies which 
must otherwise be considered to be extinct, will, it is expected, be thought a 
sufficient excuse for the space which has been devoted to it. 

The significance of the closing sentence will not be over- 

When Nicolas' work was edited anew, as Tbe Historic 
Peerage (1856), by Courthope, he pointedly observed in his 
preface that he had omitted — 

the observations upon the Barons' Letter to the Pope . . . the Editor being 
of opinion that the absence of all proof of its having been forwarded to its 
destination, and of its connexion (except as to date) with the Parliament then 
sitting at Lincoln, must render it incapable of ever being received as a Proof 
of Sitting in Parliament on the part of those individuals whose names are 
thereto attached (p. vi.). 

There the matter appears to have rested until the question, 
as explained above, was definitely raised in the present year. 

As it was one of considerable importance, the Attorney- 
General addressed to the Committee for Privileges some 
observations on the admissibility of the letter as proof of 
sitting in Parliament, calling attention inter alia to the facts 
that it was not strictly a c record of Parliament ' and that its 
date, 12 February (1301), was nearly a fortnight subsequent 
to the close of the Parliament ; for, in the words of Dr. Stubbs, 
* on the 30th of January the knights of the shire were allowed 
their expenses and suffered to go home.' 1 In connection with 
this latter point he laid stress upon the word ' nuper ' applied 
to the Parliament in the letter. 

Meanwhile the letter itself was duly c put in,' being pro- 
duced by Sir Henry Maxwell Lyte, with all its interesting 
seals, and examined by the members of the Committee with 
great interest. 

Here it may, perhaps, be convenient to quote from 
Dr. Stubbs' work his paraphrase of its contents and his account 
of the circumstances in which it came to be written : — 

The Pope had now claimed Scotland as a fief of Rome and forbidden 
Edward to molest the Scots. This extraordinary assumption, made in a bull 
dated at Anagni, June 27, 1299, Edward determined to resist with the united 
voice of the nation. He had received the bull from Winchelsey at Sweetheart 
Abbey in Galloway on the 27th of August, 1300, and, in acknowledging the 
receipt, had re-asserted the principle already laid down in the writ of 1295, 

1 Const. Hist. (1875), ii. 151. 



' it is the custom of the realm of England that in all things touching the state 
of the same realm there should be asked the counsel of all whom the matter 
concerns.' He laid the bull therefore before the parliament at Lincoln, 
explaining that the pope had ordered him to send agents to Rome to prove 
his title to the lordship of Scotland ; and thereon he requested the barons to 
take the matter into their own hands. The barons complied, and a letter 
was written, briefly stating the grounds of the English claim and affirming 
that the kings of England never have answered or ought to have answered 
touching this or any of their temporal rights before any judge ecclesiastical 
or secular, by the free preeminence of the state of their royal dignity and by 
custom irrefragably preserved at all times ; 1 therefore after discussion and dili- 
gent deliberation the common concordant and unanimous consent of all and 
singular has been and is and shall be, by favour of God, unalterably fixed for 
the future that the king shall not answer before the pope or undergo judg- 
ment touching the rights of the kingdom of Scotland or any other temporal 
rights : he shall not allow his rights to be brought into question or send 
agents ; the barons are bound by oath to maintain the rights of the crown, 
and they will not suffer him to comply with the mandate even were he to 
wish it. This answer is given by seven earls and ninety-seven barons for 
themselves and for the whole community of the land, and is dated on the 
1 2th of February. 2 

From this paraphrase is omitted the history which the 
king and his advisers, doubtless, had put in the barons' 
mouths, namely that the kings of England, since England 
was a realm, had, in the time of the Britons as of the English, 
been direct overlords of Scotland ; also the humble supplica- 
tion to his Holiness that he would ' kindly permit ' a king 
devoted to the Roman church to enjoy his rights in peace. 

It is not known if this letter was ever actually despatched, 
but a new and a startling light has been thrown upon the 
character of the document by a discovery made, singularly 
enough, while its value as evidence is in question before the 
Committee for Privileges. 

When consulted on the subject I invited attention to the 
fact that the Parliament had broken up nearly a fortnight 
before its date ; but I did not venture to hazard the sugges- 
tion that some at least of the barons might have appended 
their seals elsewhere than at Lincoln, because, though they 
might conceivably have done so, there was no evidence what- 
ever for so bold an hypothesis. But such evidence has since 
been discovered — by Major Poynton, 1 believe — and we owe 

1 But compare with this bold assertion my Appendix on ' The Appeal to* 
Rome in 1 1 36 ' in Geoffrey de Mandeville (pp. 250-61). 

2 Const. Hist. ii. 152-3. 




our knowledge of the fact to Sir Henry Maxwell Lyte, who 
has been good enough to send it specially to the Ancestor for 

It will be observed that the last and most important of the 
three entries below is dated so late as 13 March, a full month 
later than the date given on the letter, and that only after the 
letter had been written and its despatch decided on were 
steps being taken to obtain the actual consent of some at least 
of the barons by getting them to append their seals. 1 This 
new evidence may be claimed as proof positive, at any rate, 
that the appearance of a baron's seal at the foot of this docu- 
ment is not evidence that the baron affixed that seal at 
Lincoln. We may go further and say that the letter now 
ceases to be evidence that any baron whose name appears on 
it was really present at Lincoln on 12 February, although it 
undoubtedly purports to assert that he was. The value of its 
evidence as proof of Sitting is thereby gravely affected. 

The whole story of this Parliament needs also to be told 
anew, for Nicholas is shown by his own evidence to be wholly 
wrong in his conclusion, and even Stubbs, by a rare slip, 
seems to have gone astray. But this is rather a question of 
constitutional history, with which it will be more fitting to deal 
in another place. 


The following entries concerning the barons' letter are 
from a contemporary wardrobe account now in the British 

f. 32^. Laquei de serico et cera empt\ Domino Johanni de Wyntonia 
clerico pro laqueis de serico [et] cera viridi emptis per eundem pro quodam 
scripto sigillis magnatum Anglie signando et deinde ex parte regis et eorundem 
magnatum summo pontifici mittendo pro quibusdam negociis regnum Scocie 
contingentibus per manus proprias ibidem eodem die, xvs. vjV. et per manus 
Johannis de Flete ibidem xx die Februarii, ijV. Summa xvijj. vjV. 

f. 37. Petro de Colingeburn pro uno equo badio empto de eodem et 
liberato domino Alexandro le Convers eunti versus partes Wallie ad dominum 
Edwardum filium regis principem Wallie et ad alios diversos magnates in 
March' Wallie pro quibusdam scriptis juxta ordinationem regis et ejus consilii 
ad Curiam Romanam mittendis et sigillis eorundum magnatum signandis, per 
manus ejusdem Alexandri apud Frome Is. 

Domino Radulfo de Mauton pro uno somero nigro empto de eodem et 

1 I am prepared to show that other evidence confirms the existence of 
this practice, strange as it may seem to our minds. 



liberato Alexandro le Convers misso per regem ad diversos magnates Anglie 
cum quibusdam scriptis regnum Scocie tangentibus summo pontifici per ipsum 
regem mittendis pro sigillis eorundem magnatum imponendis, per manus 
proprias apud Westmonasterium xiijo. die Marcii — vj. marcas. 



[Two copies of the barons' letter are now in existence, both of them being 
in the custody of the Master of the Rolls. They were formerly in the 
chapter house of Westminster. When no note to the contrary has been 
made, it will be understood that the seal described is to be found upon 
the silken strings of both copies, which are referred to for convenience 
as A and B.] 


John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey, whose name 
stands first in the famous letter, was a child when, in 1240, 
he followed his father in the earldom. In 1247 he was 
married to Alice de Lusignan, the king's half sister. This 
alliance made him the king's follower in his first struggles 
with the baronage, but under the influence of Simon de 
Montfort he wavered this way and that, fighting in the 
barons' army in 1263 against the Bishop of Hereford and 
ratting back with Henry of Cornwall before the year's end. 
In 1264 he held Rochester keep against Simon himself, and 
was with the right wing of the king's host in the battle 
fought hard by his own casde of Lewes. When the king was 
taken, Warenne, after fighting with the barons in the street of 
Lewes, fled to Pevensey Castle and from Pevensey to France, 
blamed by all the chroniclers as the man who deserted the 
Lord Edward in his need. He was back again in 1265, and 
was at Evesham when Earl Simon was broken by Edward. 
In 1268 he took the cross, but it is not certain whether he 
bore it over sea. The next year he had a suit in Westminster 
Hall with Alan la Zouche, and without waiting for the law to 
make an end of the quarrel, set upon his adversary with his 
followers and wounded him so that he died two months later. 
There was a line past which even this violent earl might not 
step, and Warenne rode hard for the shelter of Reigate Castle, 
pursued by the angry prince, who took him thence as a 
prisoner. But the Crown itself was not strong enough to 
take due amends from the Earl of Surrey, who came away 


from Westminster Hall under sentence to pay a fine of 10,000 
marks, a fine which was met so leisurely that the greater part 
was unpaid at his death. 

This earl is remembered in the histories by his braggart 
answer to Edward I.'s commissioners who questioned his 
warranties under the writs of quo warranto, when Warenne 
showed them for warranty the ancient and rusty sword of his 
ancestors who had conquered the lands with it. 

He was with Edward in his Welsh wars, adding to his 
great possessions lands which made him a lord of the Welsh 
marches, where he built the castle of Dinas Bran. In Scot- 
land he took Dunbar for King Edward, and was warden of 
the kingdom in 1296. But he was lingering in England 
while Wallace was gathering force in Scotland, and when at 
last Wallace and he met before Stirling he cast away his van- 
guard in one blundering movement, and in the rout of his 
army rode away to Berwick in the same haste with which he 
had ridden away from Lewes. So great a lord must needs 
have another command, and he came back to Scotland to lead 
the rearward battle at Falkirk. He died at Kennington in 
Surrey on 27 September, 1304, and was buried in the church 
of St. Pancras at Lewes. His only son William had been 
killed in a Croydon tournament in 1286, and John his only 
grandson succeeded him. Of his daughters one was mother 
to the first Lord Percy of Alnwick and the other wife to John 
Baliol, King of Scots. 

Seal. The earl sword in hand on a galloping horse with trappers of his 
arms checkered {gold and azure). The same arms are on his shield. He 
wears a long surcoat girdled at the waist, complete mail with a barrel 
helm and prick spurs. S' ■ lOH'IS ■ DE - WARENNIA ■ COMIfTIS] ■ 

Counterseal. A shield of the arms. SIGILLVM ■ IOHANNI[S ■ CjOMITIS 
• DE ■ WARENNIA. The earl is often styled Earl Warenne by the 
writers of his time. 


Thomas of Lancaster, Earl of Lancaster and of 
Leicester, and High Steward of England, was born about 
1278, and in 1296 followed his father, Edmund Crouchback, 
in his two earldoms. On this seal he is styled Earl of Ferrers, 

1 The old fashion of this seal should be noted and contrasted with the 
newer fashions of the succeeding seals. It is the same with which the earl 
sealed in 1254. 



for the reason that he inherited from his father the forfeited 
estates of Robert Ferrers, Earl of Derby. He fought in the 
Scots wars and bore the sword Curtana at the crowning of 
King Edward II. He married in 1294 a girl of eleven years 
of age, Alice de Lacy, the surviving daughter and heir of 
Henry, Earl of Lincoln, by Margaret his wife, Countess of 
Salisbury in her own right, and for the lands of these two 
earldoms Thomas did homage in 13 12. The story of the 
life of this lord with five earldoms is the story of his 
stubborn malice against his king. The accomplished knight 
from Gascony whom the king had made Earl of Cornwall 
had once worsted the Earl of Lancaster at a Wallingford 
tournament, and poor Gaveston's tournament gallantries were 
remembered by the sour and revengeful Lancaster until the 
day when he carried Sir Piers to Blacklow Hill, and there 
on his own lands had his head struck off. But Sir Piers' 
king kept a long memory under his follies, and in 1322 
Thomas of Lancaster, a surrendered traitor, was led outside 
Pontefract and there beheaded with as short a shrift as had 
Gaveston. After his death the common people's fancy made 
a saint of this man who had served neither king nor country. 
More strangely still King Edward III., son of the man whom 
Thomas had made his life's enemy, asked thrice his canoniza- 
tion of the pope, but in spite of the three demands Thomas 
of Lancaster's name is not yet in the calendar. 

Seal. The earl sword in hand upon a galloping horse with trappers of his 
arms the arms of England with a label of France. His helm pointed at the 
top has an open-winged wyvern for crest above a flowing mantle. 
The same crest is upon the horse's head. S' ■ THOME ■ [COMITJIS ■ 

Counterseal. A shield of the arms hanging from an oak bough and set be- 
tween two wingless wyverns with tails sprouted with trefoils and ending 
each in a ball. [S'] ■ THOME ■ COMITIS ■ LANCAS[TRIE ■ LEY 


Ralph de Monthermer, Earl of Gloucester and 
Hertford, in right of his wife Joan, Countess of Gloucester 
and Hertford, was a squire of the household to Gilbert of 
Clare, the Red Earl of Gloucester and Hertford who took the 
king prisoner at Lewes. The earl's widow was a great lady 
by birth, being Joan of Acre, third daughter of Edward I. 
The earl died in December of 1295, within five years of his 


marriage, and the Countess Joan married the handsome squire 
in secret, and had the king's pardon therefor. She died in 
1307, and Ralph made a second clandestine marriage with a 
second highborn widow, Isabel le Despenser, the Earl of 
Winchester's daughter and the widow of John of Hastings. 
After the death of his first wife he is summoned to parliament 
only as a baron. He died in or before 1325. 

Seal. The earl sword in hand upon a galloping horse with his arms upon 
shield and trappers {gold) with an eagle {vert). His eagle crest is shown 
upon the horse's head and was doubtless upon his helm, the point of 
which is now broken off ..... . RTFORD ■ KILKENI • & • D'Nl ■ 


Counterseal. A shield of the arms between two wyverns M 




and Constable of England, was born about 1276. The 
year after he set his seal to the barons' letter he married 
Elizabeth, daughter of Edward I. and widow of John, Count 
of Holland and Zeeland. He was one of those lords who 
led Piers Gaveston to Blacklow Hill, and was prisoner to 
the Scots after Bannockburn, so great a prize that King 
Robert's captive wife was changed for him. As he had stood 
against Gaveston so the earl stood against the Despensers and 
so came by his end, being killed in arms against the king at 
the battle of Boroughbridge in 1322. 

Seal. The earl upon a galloping horse, sword in hand. The shield and 
horse-trappers bear the arms of Bohun, which are (azure) with a bend of 
(silver) and cotises oj (gold) between six (golden) lioncels. The helm has a fan- 
crest, and a like crest is upon the horse's head. S' H ■ DE ■ BOHVN • 

Counterseal. A shield of the arms of Bohun, hung by a strap from the back 
of the Bohun swan. On either side is a shield with the quarterly shield 
of the old earls of Essex, with a trefoil above each shield. S' HVMFRIDl 



Roger Bigod, Earl of Norfolk and Marshal of 
England, was born in 1240. This earl, with Humphrey, 
Earl of Hereford, led the baronage in its long struggle with 
the Crown. He is remembered for his rough refusal to 
serve beyond sea out of the company of the king. ' By 
God, earl,' said the king, £ you shall either go or hang/ 
4 By God, king,' answered the earl stoutly, c I will neither go 

i 9 4 


nor hang.' In 1301 he made the king his heir, for reasons 
which have never been explained, but which some would 
explain by assigning to the earl an important but unrecognized 
place in the royal pedigree. He died in 1306 without issue, 
although he was twice married. 

Seal. A shield of the arms party {gold) and (vert) with a lion (gules). 


Guy de Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, so christened in 
remembrance of Guy of Warwick, the fabled forefather of the 
earls, was born in 1278. He gained great honour at Falkirk 
in 1298, for which he had lands in Scotland. In 13 10 he was 
one of the lords ordainers, and in 13 12 he was one of those 
five who seized Gaveston and took him the first stage of that 
journey to Blacklow Hill. Gaveston in years gone by had 
called him c the black cur of Arden,' an epithet which with 
the black cur's teeth in him the unhappy Piers doubtless called 
to mind. In 1 3 1 8 he died at his castle in Warwick by poison, 
as it was said. 

Seal. The earl sword in hand upon a galloping horse. On the shield and 

horse-trappers are the arms of Beauchamp (gules) a /esse and six crosslets 

(gold) . . . GW[l]DON' DE • BELLOCAM .... 
Counterseal. A shield of the arms of the old Earls of Warwick checkered 

(gold and azure) with a cheveron ermine hanging between two leopards. 



Richard fitz Alan, Earl of Arundel, was born in 
1267, and was summoned in 129 1-2 as Earl of Arundel. 
He was in the Welsh and French wars, and was at the seige 
of Caerlaverock in 1300, where the poet saw him, c beau 
chivalier e bien ame,' richly armed in red with a lion rampant of 
gold. He died in 1302 in his thirty-sixth year. 

Seal. The earl on a galloping horse, sword in hand. Upon the shield and 
horse-trappers the arms of Fitzalan — (gules) a lion (gold). SIGILLVM • 


Aymer de Valence, Earl of Pembroke, Lord of Wex- 
ford, of Valence and Montignac, son of King Henry III.'s 
half brother William de Valence, was born between 1260 and 
1265. He was at Caerlaverock with his 'fair banner' of 
silver and azure burelly with the red martlets in its border. 
He was guardian and lieutenant of Scotland in 1307 and 13 14 



and guardian of England in 1320 when the king was over- 
sea. He died without issue in 1324 and was buried under 
the beautiful tomb which remains in Westminster Abbey. 

Seal. A shield of the arms of Valence — burelly {silver) and {azure) witb~an 
orle of martlets of {gules). Amongst the sprigs at the sides are two martlets. 

This seal has been smashed in the B copy of the letter. 


Henry of Lancaster, Lord of Monmouth, and after- 
wards Earl of Lancaster and Leicester, was born about 128 1, 
and was next brother and heir to Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, 
whose seal is the second to this letter. He was one of those 
barons who stood in the field against Edward II., who was 
sometime his prisoner. He died in 1345, having been long 

Seal. A shield of his arms of Lancaster, which are those of England with a 
baston (of azure). The helm has a little mantle and a crest of a winged 
wyvern or dragon, and two like monsters are displayed at the side in 
guise of supporters. S' HENRICI ■ DE • LANCASTIR ■ DOMIN[l D]E • 


John of Hastings, Lord of Bergavenny, was born 
in 1262, son and heir of one of the barons of Montfort's 
parliament. On the death of his uncle George de Caunte- 
low the great lordship of Bergavenny came to him by in- 
heritance, and he was summoned as a baron in 1295. He 
was seneschal of Aquitaine in 1309. He died in 13 13 and 
his second wife, a Despenser, who survived him, married 
Ralph Monthermer, the third sealer of the letter. 

Seal. 1 A shield of arms — a cross between four fleurs de lys with five fleurs de 
lys upon the cross. 

Counterseal. A shield of arms — a cross with five fleurs de lys thereon [as on 
the obverse] between a leopard in the first and fourth quarters and a lion 
in the second and third quarters. The shield is set between two dragon- 
like monsters. 


Henry de Percy, Lord of Topcliff in Yorkshire, was 
third son of Henry de Percy, and was heir to his elder brother 
John in 1283-4.. He was of full age and had livery of his 
brother's lands in 1293-4. He fought in the Scots wars and 

1 A note upon this curious seal and an attempt to elucidate its bearings 
and inscriptions will appear in a later issue of the Ancestor. 


was at the battle of Dunbar. In 1309 he bought of Anthony 
Bek, the Bishop of Durham, the castle of Alnwick, which was to 
be so long in the hands of his descendants. He died in 13 15. 

Seal. The baron upon a galloping horse, sword in hand. His shield and 
horse-trappers bear the arms of Percy — the shield which they took on 
abandoning their more ancient one of the indented fesse — {gold) with a 
lion (of azure) SIGILLVM • HE[NR]IC[I D]E ■ PERCI. 

Counterseal. A shield of the arms. SIGILLVM • HE[NRIC]I DE • PERCI. 
This seal remains only to the A copy of the letter. 


Edmund de Mortimer, Lord of Wigmore in Here- 
fordshire, succeeded his father in 1282 when he was of full age. 
He fought in the Welsh wars, where he got his death at the 
battle of Builth in 1304. 

Seal. A shield of the arms of Mortimer, which arms are blazoned in the 
roll of arms generally called the Parliamentary Roll as barre de or e de 
azure od le chef pake les corners geronne a un escuchon de argent. 


Robert fitz Walter, Lord of Woodham in Essex, suc- 
ceeded his father in 1257, being then aged ten years. He was 
grandson of Robert fitz Walter, the first of the Magna 
Carta barons. He was a distinguished soldier in France, in 
Wales and in England, and was summoned as a baron in 
1295. He died in 1325. 

Seal. A shield of the arms of fitz Walter, which are (gold) with a fesse 
and two cheverons of (gules). The seal bears no legend. 


John St. John, Lord of Halnaker in Sussex and of 
Basing in Hampshire, was the heir of Hugh de Port who held 
Basing and fifty-four other lordships in Hampshire at the 
general survey. He was lieutenant of Aquitaine and fought 
in the wars in Gascony, being sometime a prisoner in Paris. 
He died in 1301, soon after the sealing of the letter. 

Seal. The knight sword in hand upon a galloping horse with the arms of 
St. John (silver) a chief (gules) with two pierced molets of (gold), upon 
shield and horse-trappers. The helm has a crest of a leopard standing 
between two palm-branches, which is set upon the horse's head also. 

Counterseal. A shield of the arms between two wyverns S' lOH'IS ■ DE • 

(To be continued.) 




OF the great English houses which 
warring with our ancient kings, broke 
themselves against the sovereign power, 
Nevill alone stays in the saddle in an ac- 
knowledged line, with an old barony to 
which has been tagged a Georgian earldom 
and viscounty and a new Victorian mar- 
quessate. To these, were it not for the 
rising in the north country in 1569 and the consequent 
attainder of Charles Nevill, the sixth earl, might have been 
added the earldom of Westmorland, an historic title dating 
from the fourteenth century. 

Nevill bears one of those oversea surnames which per- 
suaded Defoe that our boasted English nobility sprang from 
foreign mercenaries. But not the least interesting side of the 
great story of Nevill is shown us when we see that this French 
surname covers a race English bred and born. 

The forefather of Nevill was Uchtred, whose name we 
have and nothing more of him. Dolfin son of Uchtred we 
know. He had Staindropshire from the prior of Durham in 
1 13 1, 1 King Henry I. then reigning in England. When he 
did his homage to the prior of Durham for Staindrop he re- 
served the homage which he owed to the kings of England 
and Scotland and to the Bishop of Durham. Therefore 
Dolfin son of Uchtred and forefather of Nevill was a great 
man and doubtless a highborn Northumbrian. More than 
this we cannot say, although other genealogists have been less 
timid. For Dugdale as for Mr. Evelyn Shirley, Dolfin son of 
Uchtred was Dolfin son of Earl Gospatric ; but such guesses 
are based upon the ancient and approved methods of the 
genealogists, whose rule that bearers of the same name might 
be treated as one and the same person carried them on to 
genealogical successes which we may envy. 

1 Feodary of the priory of Durham (see Feudal England). 

i 97 


Dolfin's grandson, Robert son of Maldred, makes the 
match which gives the Nevills their name, mating with Isabel 
de Nevill, daughter of Geoffrey de Nevill by the heir of 
Bertram de Bulmer, 1 and sister and heir of Henry de Nevill. 
Henry had been in arms with the barons against King John, 
but had made his peace, giving hostages for his good faith. 
It has been denied that the name of Nevill occurs in Domes- 
day Book. Ralph de Nevill is however found therein amongst 
the Lincolnshire clamor es. Thereafter we find many Nevills, 
and from these the older genealogists have chosen for them- 
selves fitting ancestors for Westmorland and Warwick. 
Gilbert de Nevill has been elected patriarch — c Gilbert de 
Nevill who came into England with William the Conqueror, 
being at that time his admiral, as some of our genealogists 
have noted, though there be no mention of him nor any of 
that name in the great survey made by that king.' Thus 
Dugdale in his Baronage. The last part of the statement we 
have contradicted above, and the story of the admiral merits 
little consideration. Its origin is not far to seek. When in 
the middle ages the industrious shield painters began to 
imagine and set forth shields for Hector of Troy, Judas 
Maccabaeus and King Lud, they did not forget the heroes of 
the great foray which King William made in England. 
Gilbert de Nevill, by that time made ancestor of the northern 
lords, has a shield of arms found for him, a shield bearing a 
ship, a nef) for a play upon his name. Doubtless the very 
men who had conceived the shield in their own wits were 
ready to deduce from it the tale that Gilbert, who would have 
borne such a shield had shields of arms been known in his 
time, was admiral of the ships of 1066. No such shield was 
borne by Isabel de Nevill's descendants, who made a red 
banner with a silver saltire the gathering sign of northern war. 
It may be hazarded that the dun bull of Westmorland, that 
sacred totem whose figure modern taste has taken from the 
walls of Raby to decorate a stable gateway, was borne for a 
memorial of the line of Bulmer. 

Once founded at Raby the house grew in fame and power. 
Nevill became their name for ever, Isabel's son Geoffrey 
taking it to himself, the first surname which his line had 

1 Swereford's extracts from the pipe roll show Geoffrey de Nevill as? heir 
in 2 Ric. I. of Bertram of Bolemer (probably in right of his wife). Henry 
de Nevill was Bertram's heir in 1 2 John. 


borne. Under Henry III. the Nevill was out against the 
king, but his pardon was easily gained. The rough north 
country was a breeding ground of captains, and the Nevills 
saw Scottish war and war with France, John de Nevill being 
Richard II. 's lieutenant of Aquitaine, and boasting that in that 
post he had won and rendered to the king eighty-three walled 
towns and castles. This John's wife was a Percy of Alnwick, 
and from this marriage onward the house of Nevill began to 
throw out its famous branches of cadet lines, in one of which 
its highest honour was to rise and fall. John de Nevill's 
second son was Lord Furnival in right of his wife, the heir 
of Furnival. A second wife of John de Neville was heir to 
Latimer and his son by her Lord Latimer, a title which 
afterwards came to a third son of the first earl. In Ralph 
Nevill, Lord Furnival's elder brother, the house was exalted. 
Richard II. made him Earl of Westmorland and Richard's 
supplanter Earl Marshal of England. He grasped many 
offices in his hands, and died a rich earl with a patriarchal 
family of at least two and twenty children, by whom the 
Nevills might ever after call cousins with all the great English 
barons. His first wife's children were married with Holand, 
Ferrers, Mauley, Grey, Lancaster, Dacre, Scrope and Umfravile. 
Then the earl for a second wife took Joan, John of Gaunt's 
daughter by Dame Katharine, and had a second family, which was 
to fly higher than the falcons of Raby. The sons of this second 
family matched with Montague, Fauconberg, Beauchamp of 
Warwick and Beauchamp of Abergavenny, the daughters with 
the Dukes of Buckingham and Norfolk, the Despensers, 
Mount] oy and Riverses, and with the blood royal also when 
Cecily Nevill married Richard, Duke of York. 

After this the story of the main line must be shortly told. 
The first earl was followed by his grandson Ralph, who 
married with Hotspur's daughter. Charles the sixth earl 
ended the line. He left no son by his Howard wife, and the 
rising of 1569 broke his fortunes. 

Now spread thine ancient, Westmorland ; 
Thy dun bull fain would we espy, 

pleads the ballad singer, but before the Tudor power revolt 
withered away. The reins of the country were in strong 
hands at London. The dun bull standard was raised, but at 
the coming of Sussex with the forces of the Crown it fled 



over the border, and the great Earl of Westmorland must 
needs skulk for his lite like any wandering cateran. The 
Spaniards in the Netherlands received honourably this plotter 
against the island sorceress, but Charles Nevill, his earldom 
taken from him by attainder, never saw the Westmorland fells 
again, and died an old and unregarded man, ' meanly and 
miserably/ With what feeling can this old man amongst the 
Spaniards have learned from them that the great Armada., 
which would without doubt have set him again in his seat, 
had been scattered under the English cliffs. 

It is telling an old tale, and that tale the history of our 
land of England, to rehearse the doings of the Nevills in 
those furious years of the fifteenth century, which saw the 
bloody end of our old nobility. Chief amongst those nobles 
was a Nevill. Richard Nevill, the eldest born of Earl Ralph's 
second marriage bed, a grandson of John of Gaunt and Earl 
of Salisbury in his wife's right, begot another Richard Nevill, 
E^rl of Salisburv by birth, Earl of Warwick bv marriage. 
A chronicler soon after his day called this Richard regum 
crc-.uyr, and the King Maker he has been to us ever since. 
Hume styled him c last of the barons,' and by this name too 
we remember him, thanks to Lord Lytton's faded novel 
whose title remains although the dull wool-work of its romance 
is not saved from the limbo of dead books even by the ridicu- 
lous imaginations of a writer who peopled England of the 
fifteenth century with c Normans ' and c Saxons.' 

A king maker he was, for it was the great Nevill power, 
with its wide kinship of earls and barons and the spears fol- 
lowing it from uncounted lordships and lands, which plucked 
down Henrv and set Edward in his place, which drove Edward 
abroad and thrust the sceptre again into Henry's feeble fingers. 
But in Edward of York Warwick had summoned up a spirit 
which he might not lay. Warwick's fame is the fame of a 
captain, and although nothing of a statesman he was an able 
minister of the old school, apt to set his enemies by the ears 
and to play one feud against another. Yet even in that mo- 
ment when Edward lay between the paws of the bear, an un- 
crowned king, Warwick's fate was upon him. For that subtle 
mind outmatched the Nevill at even' point, and when on the 
Easter morning of 14" i the king's army found Warwick on 
the Barnet field, the prancing and thrusting tactics of the 
middle ages were in vain against the generalship of a king 


who moved his host as men move pieces at the chess play. 
The chronicles and ballads have the tale to tell. In the white 
mist which the wizard had summoned up Warwick's brother 
died in the sword play, and the King Maker took horse and 
fled before the king he had made. Commines tells us that 
the great earl never loved to venture on foot amongst the 
spears, but would ever have his horse by him to avoid in 
time ill fortune of war. But Barnet was his last throw 
against a master of the dice, and no horse might save him. 
He rode so far as the nearest cover of woodland, but there 
he was caught up with and butchered under the boughs with 
the few who followed him. 

After this the ragged staff was broken. Warwick's own 
line was crushed out. Of his daughters Isabel had married 
Clarence, who went childless to the malmsey butt. Anne her 
sister, married in the cockpit of our history to Edward, Prince 
of Wales, took for a second husband Richard of Gloucester, 
whose dagger had widowed her, and bore to him an Edward, 
Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester, who died before Bos- 
worth could take those dangerous titles from him. So scat- 
tered were the vast possessions of the younger house of 
Nevill that George, Duke of Bedford, Warwick's nephew, 
was degraded from all his honours by a parliament which de- 
clared that dukedoms and marquessates were no trinkets for 
a landless man without a penny to chink against another. 

One line only of the descendants of the first Earl of 
Westmorland remains to be reckoned with. His descend- 
ants in the female line by his two-and-twenty children must 
count amongst themselves every Englishman with a drop of 
gentle blood in his veins. Like Edward I. he is the father of 
all of us, an ancestor to hall and cottage. But the Nevill 
name goes on through his fourth son by John of Gaunt's 
daughter. For Edward Nevill a wife was found, a Beauchamp 
with the barony of Bergavenny for her portion. This 
Edward fought beside Warwick at Northampton for Edward 
of March, but Edward once crowned kept Edward NevilFs 
allegiance to the end, and the Lord Bergavenny arrayed the 
men of Kent against Richard, Earl of Warwick. The Nevill 
strength was too unwieldy to remain whole. 

His son George, knighted at Tewkesbury, was a fortunate 
soul or a politic one. He steered his bark safely through the 
chopping waters of the war, attended Richard's crowning and 




held a military command in the army which Henry Tudor 
sent to Calais. 

The third Lord Bergavenny was a Knight of the Bath 
when Richard was crowned, but he too saved himself alive 
under the new dynasty. He was a soldier at Boulogne and 
in the field of the spurs, and died in his bed although twice 
in prison upon suspicion of treason. He handed down his 
lands to his son although he had been amongst the wasteful 
lords who followed Henry to the Field of Cloth of Gold. The 
fourth lord saw prison walls once for striking the Earl of 
Oxford in the presence chamber of Edward VI., but he helped 
rout Wyatt's rebels for Queen Mary and died in the peace 
of Queen Elizabeth. His only daughter Mary would have 
carried the Bergavenny barony to the Fanes, but it was ad- 
judged to the heir male, one Edward Nevill, son of a Sir 
Edward, whose fortune had not carried him through the 
perilous Tudor times with his head safely on his shoulders. 

History here takes leave of the Nevills, but genealogy 
carries them to our own day. They breed no more plotters 
or partisans. The thirteenth Lord Abergavenny dies com- 
modore of a squadron on the Virginia station, the fourteenth 
is master of the jewel office. The fifteenth lord is created in 
1784 Viscount Nevill and Earl of Abergavenny. 

The fifth Earl of Abergavenny is to-day Marquess of 
Abergavenny and Earl of Lewes in the United Kingdom, Lord 
Lieutenant of Sussex and Knight of the Garter. He is de- 
scendant in the male line of Dolfin of Staindropshire, the son 
of Uchtred, and that line runs through an uncle of the King 
Maker. With such a pedigree no other in the peerage books 
may be matched. 

O. B. 


THE last few years have seen the beginning and ending of 
many magazines and reviews dealing with the archaeology 
of single counties of England. That the counties for the 
most part should give them lukewarm greeting is not to be 
wondered at. The country itself hardly affects an interest in 
its own past history, and the county Notes and Queries, or 
Archaeological Magazine, supported as it is by the enthusiasm 
of some single antiquary without following or support, soon 
withers away. 

Such a provincial magazine has the choice of two fates. 
It may live by the work of its own editor, as did the Hert- 
fordshire Genealogist, whose three volumes represent years of 
skilled record work by Mr. William Brigg. Mr. Brigg was 
reckless of the delicate digestion of c the general reader.' He 
filled his useful pages with the strong meat of accurate record 
abstracts, gave Hertfordshire a well indexed and accessible body 
of information concerning its ancient family history, and left 
the county before many of its amateurs of archaeology had 
become aware of the existence of his work. As Mr. Brigg 
was in his own person the Hertfordshire genealogist, the 
journal of that name ended with his removal to Yorkshire, 
and the work has never been taken up by others. 

A lingering end has taken other journals which have 
not wanted for contributors. A certain space has to be filled 
month by month or quarter by quarter, and there have been 
editors who have counted it discourteous to refuse asylum to 
any screed which a respectable dullard may have inked out upon 
paper. Threadbare commonplaces from Chambers' Book of Days 
or Brand's Popular Antiquities have stood for folk-lore ; mis- 
understood scraps from the county history for genealogy ; 
tombstone doggerel and the familiar sillinesses concerning the 
origin of the signs of the c Goat and Compasses ' and the c Swan 
with Two Necks ' for original researches. Books for review have 

1 Wiltshire Notes and Queries : An Illustrated Quarterly Antiquarian and 
Genealogical Magazine (George Simpson, publisher, Devizes). 




been received with grateful surprise. A Yorkshire editor re- 
viewed a quack medicine pamphlet at some length as a work 
commendable to Yorkshire antiquaries for its science and its 
morals, and the older series of the Reliquary marked its decay- 
ing days by its enthusiastic criticisms of the specimen Christ- 
mas cards sent its editor by a London fancy stationer, illus- 
trations being afforded of the more striking examples. We 
have known an archaeological journal made the means whereby 
a local rector might make known to his friends and neighbours 
his satisfaction with the Holy Land which he had surveyed, 
auspice Cook, in his vacation holiday, and such a journal may 
form an invaluable receptacle for those views upon Mosaic 
geology or the measurements of the great pyramid which most 
editors are in conspiracy to suppress. 

Wiltshire is amongst those counties which have succeeded 
in nourishing for several years past a healthy and promising 
journal for its topographers. This is indeed as it should be, 
for Wiltshire to the antiquary is one of the inner sanctuaries 
of England. Under the editorship of Mr. Arthur Schomberg, 
the main lines upon which the work has been schemed are 
the only ones upon which a local antiquarian journal can 
hope to do good work. The articles and notes collected 
by him deal with Wiltshire to the exclusion of outlying 
parts of the wide world. Hashes of well known and accessible 
work have been refused, the door has been shut to the long- 
winded crank of the provinces, and books received for review 
have received critical notices. 

On the other side much useful work has been done. 
Progress has been made with a calendar of Wiltshire feet of 
fines, with calendars of Wiltshire Quaker records, and with 
detailed pedigrees of local families. Many topographical notes are 
recorded, and some most valuable collections for the early history 
of Wiltshire parishes are appearing from time to time. An 
article on the Goodenoughs of Sherston gives some delightful 
entries from the account book kept by Francis Goodenough, 
an attorney, brother and companion of one whom the Diction- 
ary of National Biography describes as c Goodenough, Richard, 
flourished 1686, conspirator and attorney of bad repute, who 
contrived nevertheless to obtain the under-sheriffdom of Lon- 
don.' The two Goodenoughs were rioters, jury-packers and 
plotters. The breaking of the Rye House Plot, that ( horrid 
conspiracy,' drove Richard abroad ; but Francis, who had shared 


his dangers, is found living in Sherston from 17 10 to 1725, sit- 
ting peacefully under his own fig-tree and quarrelling with his 
gardeners. The entries are frank and full of rustic colouring. 
£ Lazy Roger Wicks ' is paid $s. for c 1 week's sawing and 
loitering.' William Wimbow is paid, having finished the 
kitchen loft c after a cobbling manner.' The same Wimbow 
makes a cupboard over the passage door, and leaving his work 
'goes away like a K.' Four days afterwards he is back 
at his job, only to go away again, and when he would have 
made a new beginning Mr. Goodenough c would not let him 
have his tools.' A day's work by David Rice is thus summed 
up by his employer : c he digged some stones out of the bowl- 
ing green garden, gathered some kidney beans and threw a 
little earth into the Quar and watered the horse twice.' A 
second Wicks shows himself true brother to lazy Roger by 
counting three hours to his dinner hour. c He saies there is 
14^. yet due to him.' Mr. Goodenough adds, C I say not.' 

In turning the pages which deal with the medieval history 
of Wiltshire we are struck again and again by the curious 
welter of Latin and English which our English antiquaries 
employ in dealing with personal names. We have in a Latin 
indenture Robertus Baynard and Jocosa Baynard his wife. Upon 
what principle must Robertus be translated into English Robert, 
whilst Jocosa remains Latin Jocosa instead of accompanying 
him as English Joyce. Robert, John, William, all these be- 
come English, but Joan, Margaret, Isabel and the like remain 
clad in the Latin of the scriveners. This is most apparent in 
the notes upon the prioresses of Amesbury, where some Joans 
are Joans, and others Johannas. For such a name as Sibilla 
de Montacute there can be no excuse. Sibilla is Sibyl, even 
as she appears three lines lower down, and Montacute is 
neither Latin nor English, but a guesswork translation of de 
Monte Acuto^ which is in English Montagu. 

To these notes upon Mr. Schomberg's work for Wiltshire 
we have but to add that all is made useful to the genealogist 
by the adding of a good and complete index of names, which 
should be for an example to other editors of such journals. 






In his instructive article on this family 1 Mr. Wilson 
observes (p. 94) that c A large property in Yorkshire came to 
the family by Robert's marriage with Maud second daughter 
and co-heiress of Roger and Isabel de Lauceles of Ellerton in 
that county,' citing 'Close Rolls, 16 Edw. II. m. 23 ; 17 
Edw. II. m. 33.' It may not be amiss to correct the slight 
slip here involved, for its cause is a snare against which 
genealogists have to be always on their guard. 

The marriage in question is correcdy given in a pedigree 
of Hilton of Swine in Poulson's Holderness (ii. 197) as below. 

Sir William Hilton, kt. = Maud dau. and co-h. of=Sir Robert de Tilliol, kt. 
Lord of Swine, circ. I Sir Roger de Lascels j 
1290 \ 

Sir Robert Hilton, kt. Sir Peter de Tilliol, kt. 
of Swine 


Further particulars will be found in The Topographer and 
Genealogist^ i. 217-9. There will there be found a deed of 
Maud, as widow of Sir Robert de Tilliol, kt., dated 1324, 
with an illustration of its interesting seal, showing three 
shields meeting in base ; the coats are Lascelles (afterwards 
adopted by her heirs, the Hiltons), Hilton and Tilliol. As 
the Tilliols were only descended from her second husband, 
they could not share in the Lascelles inheritance, which com- 
prised Escrick, Kirby-under-Knoil and Scruton. 


Sir, — 

The c Notes on some Durham Families ' published in the 
last number of the Ancestor has induced me to point out an 

1 Ancestor^ iv. 88-100. 


error in one of the pedigrees in Mr. Surtees' History of 
Durham, which may be of interest to G. B. 

In Mr. Surtees' pedigree of the Pembertons of Aislaby it 
is stated that Sarah, daughter of William Pemberton of 
Darlington, married George Pinckney, and that they died s.p. 
This is quite wrong, for they had six children, three sons and 
three daughters. 

The three sons died under age and unmarried, and of the 
three daughters two died unmarried and one, Anne (event- 
ually heir), married Thomas Simpson of Richmond, many of 
whose descendants are now living. 

The probate copy of the will of George Pinckney, together 
with the releases to the trustees on the death of his sons, is in 
possession of Messrs. Lucas, Hutchinson & Co., solicitors, 
Darlington, and from these I have made some extracts. 

The same error occurs in Mr. Longstaffe's History of 
Darlington, and as it is there stated that the pedigree was 
supplied by the late Mr. Robert Henry Allan (a descendant 
of Elizabeth Pemberton, Sarah's sister) it may be that the 
mistake was his, as he seems to have supplied Mr. Surtees 
with much county of Durham information. 

Should G.B. be interested in the matter I shall be pleased 
to give him any further information I may be possessed of. 
I am, sir, 

Yours very truly, 


2 May, I903. 

Dear Sir, — 

Though living abroad, I am a regular reader of your very 
interesting periodical, and as such I take the liberty of applying 
to you for a small space, in which to ask a question, trusting 
that either you or one of your readers may be willing and able 
to oblige me with the answer. 

According to an old tradition handed down from father 
to son in my family, one of our ancestors, one Daniel Obrien, 
was an officer or possibly only a common soldier with the 
forces sent across by Queen Elizabeth in the year 1585 to 
assist the Dutch in their struggle against the Spaniards. 



Up to the present day our coat of arms is the identical 
one borne by the Irish O'Briens. I have taken great pains 
to discover, over here in my native country, who may have 
been the father of the aforesaid Daniel, but although these 
investigations have brought to my knowledge a good many 
minor details, hitherto unknown to me, I was not successful 
in solving the principal mystery. 

It strikes me that some extensive family history of the 
Irish O'Brien family might perhaps contain an allusion to, or 
possibly even some more definite information concerning a 
son who crossed over to Holland in 1585. 

I should be very much obliged if you would kindly bring 
this case under the observation of English genealogists by 
publishing my letter in your much read periodical, and I offer 
you my sincere thanks in anticipation. 

I am, dear Sir, 

Faithfully yours, 


2, Breestraat, 

Leiden, Holland. 


MANY letters have reached us demanding an index of 
names occurring in the Ancestor. That index has been 
prepared some months ago, and a word of explanation con- 
cerning it may be needful. The Ancestor is sent out in bound 
numbers, and an index of names at the end of each number 
would delay its issue and create too many indices. Therefore 
it was decided to have one index only for the year, but this 
could not be made up until volume iv. had appeared. Rather 
than bind it out of its place at the end of vol. v. we have 
issued it separately in a stiff paper cover of the Ancestor s 
colours, and a single copy of it may be had for the asking by 
all who possess the first four numbers of our review. 

* * * 

So far as the limitations of our leisure will allow we are 
glad to assist our readers in questions concerning the subjects 
dealt with by the Ancestor. But to one class of questioning 
letters it is all but impossible that we can reply in detail. 
We speak of the letter which, written by one who is neither 
reader of nor subscriber to the Ancestor^ demands an answer to 
the question whether the writer's pedigree has yet appeared 
in our columns. As though the Ancestor had set itself the 
task of compiling and printing the pedigrees of all English, 
Scottish and Irish families, and should by this time, having 
been founded in the spring of last year, have gone half way 
on its journey down the genealogical alphabet. 

* * * 

To our pride be it said, the Ancestor is read in the Shan 
States, in Buluwayo and in the Andaman Islands. It is ever 
our anxiety to spread our word by sea and land, but, never- 
theless, we have been compelled to refuse a contribution which 
would have driven upward by leaps and bounds the respect- 
able circulation which we enjoy in Seattle, Wash., U.S.A. A cor- 
respondent from that town asks us three questions : First, after a 
formula we are now accustomed to, have we published pedigrees 
(a) of his father's family, (b) of his grandmother's ? Secondly, 




he would put it to us that he, being aged a Harvard 

A.M. and a member of the U.S. Supreme Court Bar, and 
c active in many ways,' has, following no doubt established 
custom in Seattle, Wash., had his 'biographical sketch' written. 
Would this biographical sketch attract the Ancestor to publish 
it in whole or part ? 

It is pleasant to know that in Seattle, Wash., the appear- 
ance of a biography in the Ancestor would be held a sufficient 
introduction to English fame, for our correspondent's third 
question asks us £ what biographical dictionaries or cyclopedias 
are now in preparation ? ' and how is he to obtain c due 
mention therein ' ? Our contemporary The Times can and 
will gladly tell our correspondent more than we can about 
cyclopedias and handsome revolving bookcases, but about 
biographical dictionaries we can enlighten him. A harsh con- 
dition is as a rule exacted by the makers of these diction- 
aries, a condition which in Seattle, Wash., will be blamed as 
effete. It is that the candidate for c due mention therein ' 
should be dead. Therefore we cannot act as agent for 
the making universal of our correspondent's fame until we 
hear from his executors that he has duly fulfilled this pre- 
liminary condition. Then, as a Harvard A.M. and a member 
of the U.S. bar who has reached the age of 63J the English 
speaking world shall ring with due mention of him. 

* * * 

The Scottish heralds made a brave show on the coming or 
King Edward to his castle of Edinburgh. The Lyon King 
and his officers, Ross, Albany and Rothesay, Unicorn, March 
and Carrick paraded before the castle gates, and at the approach 
of the royal carriage summoned the castle with high ceremony, 
March Pursuivant (Captain Swinton) smiting upon the castle 
gate with his staff — the first blow, it may be, which the gate 
has suffered since the wild highlander who followed at the tail 
of a flying dragoon of King George, drove his dirk into the wood. 

* * * 

The Ex Libris Journal^ the organ in this country of those 
who collect book-plates, in an article which says many kind 
things of the Ancestor^ comes back again to the controversy of 
the shield and the coat of arms. We quote the whole para- 
graph dealing with this matter. 


21 I 

The editor of the Ancestor has not succeeded in showing, if the arms were 
first borne upon a shield only, as he contends, — how the knight would have 
been recognised by those who happened to behold him from other points ot 
view than upon his left front, when he was bearing his shield on his left 
arm, during his military engagements. If then, his surcoat did not also bear 
his armorial achievements, he would have been unrecognisable by friend or 
foe, and when his shield happened to be laid aside, who could have recognised 
him then ? The opinion of all the most reflective writers is, that surcoats were 
adopted chiefly in order to distinguish between the knights engaged in the 
Crusades. It therefore would follow that the shield was only copied from the 
coat, and indeed the shield is sometimes found to reproduce only a portion of 
the bearings of the larger surcoat. (See the effigy of Septvans, which shows 
more ' vans ' upon the coat than upon the shield.) 

We agree with our critic that a knight bearing a shield of 
arms and having no vesture of arms upon his body would be 
recognized with difficulty by those upon his right front. But 
the critic's question which raises this difficulty is really, our 
critic will observe, addressed rather to the primitive knight than 
to the editor of the Ancestor. Our own position is merely one of 
observation. We can produce a number of examples of very 
early shields of arms. For those who contend that the coat is 
more ancient than the shield it is needful that they should array 
for us as many examples of armorial coats of even earlier date. 
This Mr. W. Cecil Wade, we submit, has failed to do, and 
every one who has read his letter in the fifth number of the 
Ancestor will recognize that Mr. Wade has given time and 
enthusiasm to his search. If we are forced to answer and say 
in what manner the knight could have been recognized without 
his shield if he bore no coat of arms, we may reply that in such 
case he was perhaps unrecognizable and yet remain unmoved 
in our position. A sergeant in our own day bears three cheve- 
rons upon his right arm only. When his left side is turned to 
us he may be corporal or private for all our eyes can tell, but 
that the sergeant's tunic is and has been so charged is matter 
of history and fact. The c reflective writer ' who would con- 
tend that the first of all sergeant's tunics bore cheverons at 
front and back and on left and right sleeves must, to convince, 
find us the picture of that tunic in the book of military 

* % * 

Some of those who have seen the earlier volumes of 
Messrs. Wedderburn and Cook's definitive edition of the 
works of Ruskin may have wondered at the armorial display 
upon its handsome covers. The design is, we believe, from the 



hand of the master, who had a pretty taste for armory, and 
showed, in a famous disquisition on that subject, that it is 
unnecessary for a preacher to understand his text. The arms 
upon this Ruskin shield are, as we are told by one of the 
editors, taken from a grant of arms to Mr. Ruskin' s father in 
1845 or thereabouts. The shield bears a cheveron between 
six spearheads, an odd and unusual arrangement, with three 
crosslets of uncertain form upon the cheveron. 

JjJ £ 

Something in the appearance of this shield suggests that 
the elder Ruskin had been made, after the approved fashion 
of ofHcial armorv, a cadet of some older family than his own. 
As the familv of Mr. Ruskin begins with his grandfather, a 
calico merchant in Edinburgh, it is at least instructive to note 
the pedigree upon which it was officially decided to graft him. 
In Leicestershire, which is quite a long way from Edinburgh, 
and in the fifteenth century, which is a long way from 1845, 
there dwelt one William Ruskin. He was of Melton Mow- 
bray and was husband of Elizabeth Beler, heir of her brother 
John Beler in 14" 5. They had a son Jasper, and Jasper had 
daughters, one of whom carried the Ruskin arms as a quar- 
tering to the Lacys of Halifax. Those arms were the cheveron 
and six spearheads, and this was the shield which, with the 
difference of three charges on the cheveron, as for a younger 
branch, was assigned to a Scots wine merchant in 1S45. 
But official heraldn*, as Mr. W. P. W. Phillimore comes to 
remind us, is £ a living science, and far more concerned with 
the twentieth century than with the archaic survivals of the 

* * £ 

Sir Conan Doyle and Sir Xigel Loring have not yet led 
their White Company out of danger. Sir Ralph Payne- 
Gallwey, archer and antiquary, is making a mark of their 
bowmen. To him, as an expert, the shooting match between 
Aylward and the crossbowman is c simply amazing in its de- 
tails ' ; and Ayl ward's final shot of 6co yards is marked by 
Sir Ralph with a bold note of exclamation. Eight White 
Company archers cut in eight shots the hempen cable of a 
large vessel at her moorings, the eight shots striking each 
within a quarter inch of one another, and that at 200 paces. 



Of Aylward we may truly say — 

Such archers as he and his men 
Shall England never see again. 

And Sir Ralph does not disguise his belief that England has 
never at any time rejoiced in the sight of such archers as were 
Aylward and his friends by their own report. But when Sir 
Ralph goes on to hint that Sir Conan does not understand 
how to wind up his crossbow, and that bolt shooting cross- 
bows do not need the double string with which Sir Conan fits 
them, we recall some earlier criticism of the White Company's 
equipment, which criticism was blamed as c niggling.' 

Butler and Tanner The Selwood Printing Works Frome and London 



Of the Public Record Office 
4 vols., us. net 

The Fourth Volume Containing the INTRODUCTION and 
SUPPLEMENT may be purchased separately 

Price ios. 6d. net 

These Letters are the genuine correspondence of a family in 
Norfolk during the Wars of the Roses. As such they are altogether 
unique in character ; yet the language is not so antiquated as to present 
any serious difficulty to the modern reader. The topics of the letters 
relate partly to the private affairs of the family, and partly to the 
stirring events of the time ; and the correspondence includes State 
papers, love-letters, bailiffs' accounts, sentimental poems, jocular epistles, 

Besides the public news of the day, such as the loss of Normandy 
by the English ; the indictment and subsequent murder at sea of the 
Duke of Suffolk ; and all the fluctuations of the great struggle of York 
and Lancaster ; we have the story of John Paston's first introduction 
to his wife ; incidental notices of severe domestic discipline, in which 
his sister frequently had her head broken ; letters from Dame Elizabeth 
Brews, a match-making mamma, who reminds the youngest John 
Paston that Friday is * St. Valentine's Day,' and invites him to come 
and visit her family from the Thursday evening till the Monday, etc., 

Every letter has been exhaustively annotated ; and a Chronological 
Table, with most copious Indices, conclude the Work. 

HENRT HALLAM, Introduction to the Literature of Europe, i. 228. Ed. 1837 : « The 
Paston Letters are an important testimony to the progressive condition of Society, and come in 
as a precious link in the chain of moral history of England which they alone in this period 
supply. They stand, indeed, singly, as far as I know, in Europe ; for though it is highly 
probable that in the archives of Italian families, if not in France or Germany, a series of 
merely private letters equally ancient may be concealed ; I do not recollect that any have 
been published. They are all written in the reigns of Henry VI. and Edward IV., except a 
few that extend as far as Henry VII., by different members of a wealthy and respectable, but 
not noble, family 5 and are, therefore, pictures of the life of the English gentry of that age.' 

THE MORNING POST : < A reprint of Mr. James Gairdner's edition of The Paston 
Letters with some fresh matter, including a new introduction. Originally published in 
1872-75, it was reprinted in 1895, and is now again reproduced. The introductions have 
been reset in larger type, and joined together in one, conveniently broken here and there by 
fresh headings. The preface is practically a new one. ... It is highly satisfactory for 
readers who care about history, social or political, to have this well-printed and admirably 
introduced and annotated edition of these famous letters.' 

MANCHESTER GUARDIAN : 'One of the monuments of English historical scholar 
ship that needs no commendation.' 



The Stall Plates of the Knights of 
the Order of the Garter 1 348-1485 

Consisting of a Series of 9 1 Full-sized Coloured Facsimiles 
with Descriptive Notes and Historical Introductions by 

W. H. ST. JOHN HOPE, M.A., F.S.A. 

Dedicated by gracious privilege during her lifetime to Her 
Late Majesty QUEEN VICTORIA, Sovereign of the 
Most Noble Order of the Garter. 

The edition is strictly limited and only 500 copies of the work 
ha r ce been printed. 

The obiect of the work is to illustrate the whole or the 
earlier Stall Plates, being the remaining memorials of the four- 
teenth and fifteenth century of Knights elected under the 
Plantagenet Sovereigns from Edward the Third, Founder of 
the Order, to Richard the Third, inclusive, together with three 
palimpsest plates and one of later date. 

The Stall Plates are represented full-size and in colours on 
Japan vellum, in exact facsimile of the originals, in the highest 
style of chromolithograph)', from photographs of the plates 

Each plate is accompanied by descriptive and explanatory 
notes, and the original and general characteristics of the Stall 
Plates are fully dealt with in an historical introduction. 

There are also included numerous seals of the Knights, repro- 
duced by photography from casts specially taken for this work. 

The work may be obtained bound in half leather, gilt, 
price £6 net ; or the plates and sheets loose in a portfolio, 
^5 ics. net ; or without binding or portfolio, £5 net. 

ATHENJEUM : 6 It is pleasant to welcome the first part of a long 
promised and most important heraldic work, and to find nothing to say of it 
which is not commendatory. The present part contains ten coloured facsimiles 
out of the ninety plates which the work will include when completed. They 
reflect the greatest credit on all concerned in their production.' 

MORNING POST : 6 There is a fine field for antiquarian research in the 
splendid collection of heraldic plates attached to the stalls in the choir of St. 
George's Chapel, Windsor Castle, and it will be a matter of satisfaction to all 
who are interested in old memorials that Mr. W. H. St. John Hope has given 
close examination to these ancient insignia and now presents the results of his 
investigations, with many reproductions.' 




Edited by 


Imperial 8vo 

Edition limited to 500 copies of which only a few remain 
Price 3 1 s. 6d. net 

This work is an attempt to illustrate the history of the 
coronation of the Sovereigns of England from the earliest 
times to the present. Twenty-nine documents have been 
collected ; and, so far as possible, the transcripts have been 
made from contemporary manuscripts. 

A translation has been added to the Latin and Anglo- 
French documents. 

Mr. W. H. St. John Hope has written a note on the 
c Cap of Maintenance/ in which he has described the history 
and manner of the investiture of peers. 

The whole work constitutes a full collection of coronation 

The illustrations include a reproduction in colours of the 
picture of an English coronation at Corpus Christi College, 
Cambridge, and a photogravure of the coronation of St. 
Edmund in a manuscript belonging to Captain Holford; and 
also reproductions in collotype from the manuscript life of 
St. Edward in the University Library at Cambridge. The 
Crown of Queen Edith, which is represented from a portrait 
of Queen Henrietta Maria in the National Portrait Gallery, 
has not, it is thought, been noticed before. A feature of the 
illustrations will be the coronation chair which has been taken 
from the block cut for the late Sir Gilbert Scott's Gleanings 
from W istminster Abbey ; and there are also three plates show- 
ing the coronation robes of Queen Victoria. 

ATHENJEUM : 'Among the minor compensations for the prolonged delay incident to 
a modern act of crowning is the time that it affords for the production of such an important 
historical treatise as that which has just been produced by Mr. Wickham Legg. In this hand- 
some volume we find brought together every historical document of importance that bears on 
the question of English coronations from that of Aidan in the sixth century to that of Victoria 
thirteen centuries later.' 





With numerous Illustrations, and an Introduc- 
tion by The Editor 

Dedicated by Permission to 
His Grace The Duke of Northumberland 

2 vols, large 8vo, price £i is. net 


Also a Large Paper Edition limited to 150 copies 

£3 3 s - net 

The following is a list of some of the Illustrations included in 
' The House of Percy ' : 

Alnwick Castle, Bamborough Castle, from drawing by- 
Herbert Railton. Portrait of Henry Percy, 1st Earl of 
Northumberland — the c Earl Percie ' of Chevy Chase (repro- 
duced in colours from a contemporary MS.). Portrait of 
Henry, 7th Earl of Northumberland. The Village of Perci in 
Normandy : the cradle of the race. Syon House, Northum- 
berland House, from drawings by Herbert Railton. The full 
armorial bearings of the present Duke of Northumberland in 
colours. Various shields, signatures, and facsimile letters. 

NEWCASTLE LEADER : < The history is admirably illustrated 
with clever drawings by Herbert Railton, elaborate reproductions of 
the arms, crests, escutcheons, and pedigrees of the Percy family and 
its branches. Of course Alnwick Castle comes in for special treat- 
ment, and Mr. Railton is at his best in his sketches of that famous 




By the Right Hon. 


2 vols, large 8vo, price £i is. net 

Also a Large Paper Edition limited to 150 copies 
£3 3 s - net 

The following is a list of some of the Illustrations in c The 
House of Douglas ' : 

Full-page Illustrations — Tomb of Sir James Douglas 
in St. Bride's. Arms of Douglas and Moray from Bothwell 
Castle. Tomb of Margaret, Countess of Douglas, in 
Lincluden. Arms of the Douglas Family in Lincluden 
College. Tomb of James c the Gross/ 7th Earl of Douglas, 
in St. Bride's (two plates). Tantallon Castle. Morton Castle. 
Thrieve Castle. Tomb of the 1 st Earl and Countess of Morton 
in Dalkeith Church. Portrait of the 6th Earl of Angus, from 
the Tudor Portraits in Westminster Palace, painted from a 
picture in Windsor Castle. Portrait of the 13th Earl of 
Home, photo from portrait. Portrait of Lady Margaret 
Douglas. Hermitage Castle. James, Earl of Morton (litho- 
graphed from an original drawing). 

Also various Coats of Arms in colours, and numerous Seals and Signatures. 

THE TIMES : ' No more suitable beginning for the series could 
have been found. ... A valuable and important contribution to 
Scottish History. Brightly written . . . judgments wise and sane 
. . . narrative smooth and vigorous . . . powers of description un- 
questionable. A real addition to an important and interesting subject.' 

ATHENMUM : 'The author has executed his task clearly and 
well. . . . Numerous and well-executed shields of arms, etc. A 
valuable work of reference, well printed. The author has the gift of 
an easy narrative style.' 


The first English Translation of Chateaubriand' s Famous 
Autobiography — ' Les Memoirs a 'outre Tombe ' 



Vicomte de Chateaubriand 

Sometime Ambassador 
to England 

Illustrated with Contemporary Portraits. In 6 vols. 
Purple cloth, gilt top, price £4 10s. net 

Portrait of Francois Rene, Vicomte de Chateaubriand 
(frontispiece). The Chateau de Combourg. Chateaubriand's 
birthplace, at St. Malo. Portraits of Louis XVIII. ; Marie 
Antoinette ; Malsherbes ; Mirabeau ; General Washington ; 
Madame de Chateaubriand, wife of the Author ; the Baron de 
Breteuil ; the Comte de Rivarol ; Frederic William II. ; Pel- 
tier, Editor of Les Actes des Apotres ; Napoleon Buonaparte ; 
the Comte de Montlosier ; the Abbe Delille ; L. M. de 
Fontanes ; Burke ; Pitt ; and George III. 

This noblest of nineteenth-century biographies covers the whole eighty 
years of the distinguished author's life, — his career at the court of Louis XVI. , 
— his emigration to America upon the outbreak of the Revolution, — wander- 
ings among the North-American Indians, — return to France, — service in the 
Royalist Army, — days of poverty in London, — literary and diplomatic career 
under Napoleon I., — resignation of the Valais Legation upon the murder of 
Due d'Enghien, — journey in the East, — attacks upon Napoleon, — the history 
of the First Restoration, — of Chateaubriand's Embassy to Sweden, — of the 
Hundred Days which Chateaubriand spent with Louis XVIII. at Ghent. 

The Second Restoration is fully described, and Chateaubriand writes of 
his peerage, — of the assassination of the Due de Berry, — of his Embassy to 
Berlin and life in that capital, — of his Embassy to London, — of his relations 
with George IV. and his Ministers, — of English Society at that period, — of 
the suicide of Lord Londonderry, — of the death of Louis XVIII. and acces- 
sion of Charles X., — of his conduct in opposition, as Minister of Foreign 
Affairs, and as Ambassador to Rome, — of Roman Society, ancient and modern ; 
of his interviews with Popes Leo XII. and Pius VIII., of the Papal Con- 
claves. He writes in full detail of the fall of the Polignac Ministry, the 
Revolution of July, and the usurpation of Louis-Philippe. 


9. 9 i